Jump to content

Talk:Kontsert

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Kohuept)

Clarification

[edit]

""Back In The U.S.S.R." was released as the single off this album, ending Joel's record-setting streak of 39 Billboard top-40 singles from the start of a career written by the artist who performed it."

I'm sorry, I can't understand the second part of this. Can someone please explain it to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.34.216 (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to ask the same thing. 68.46.43.198 (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's wrong, they mean ""Back In The C.C.C.P."". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.126.209 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the statement for clarity; hopefully the meaning hasn't gotten lost. It now reads: "Joel's cover of The Beatles' "Back in the U.S.S.R." became the first single released by Joel that was written by someone other than himself. It ended his record-setting streak of 39 Billboard Top 40 singles, from the start of a career, written by the artist who performed it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sme3 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

[edit]

I've moved this article from KOHUEPT to its technically-correct Cyrillic title of КОНЦЕРТ. I'm not entirely confident that this was the right thing to do, though; Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) suggests that the correct approach would be to transliterate the Cyrillic back into the Latin alphabet, but I don't know how to do that correctly (just guessing: "Kontsert"?). Also, since the album title itself is not actually in Russian, but rather is a Cyrillic transliteration of an English word (according to the article), transliterating it back into Latin letters seems a bit peculiar. Suggestions from other editors would be appreciated. --Russ Blau (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, According to our policies the titles must be written in Latin alphabet, so I moved it. Yes, Kontsert is the correct transliteration. bogdan 10:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move to Kohuept. This was discussed at WP:UE (see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)/Archive 7#Borderline case?) and the current wording "Do not use a systematically transliterated name if there is a common English form of the name". This was to allow for special cases like Снова в СССР. It may be that the sentence "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English." needs altering for cases like this, but until it is then I agree with the closure of Снова в СССР. Also even if the rules were changed I doubt if it would effect this page as a Google Search of [Концерт Billy Joel -wikipedia] [Kohuept Billy Joel -wikipedia] shows that that the latter is 10 times more common than the former and very much more common that [Kontsert Billy Joel -wikipedia]; and just as important, it is not just blogs that use Kohuept, but reliable sources like the Rolling Stone. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Концерт → Kontsert — Titles should be in the Latin alphabet. —Biruitorul (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • The precedent was that, like Концерт, Снова в СССР‎ was always in English and was never recorded in Russian, whereas Это не любовь... was a Russian release. B.Wind (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (even as ugly as it seems) per WP:UCN. Billboard album charts also used "KOHUEPT". — AjaxSmack 03:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Move to Kohuept or KOHUEPT. Billy Joel's website seems to have given in to the "corrupt" transliteration, as well as Tower Records, in addition to other Reliable Sources, as listed above. Evidence shows that this is the conventional way to display the title, as painful as that may be for purists. Erudy (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Kontsert" only, as correct transliteration. "Kohuept" is not only ugly and unpronounceable, as it's also got to be one of the worst cyrillic-to-latin transliterations in history. Wikipedia should not be tainted with others' gross and distasteful incompetence. Húsönd 23:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Kohuept". It's the form used on Joel's website, and, from WP:UE - "Do not use a systematically transliterated name if there is a common English form of the name; thus, use Tchaikovsky or Chiang Kai-shek even though those are unsystematic." Tevildo (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The title is not Faux Cyrillic. The proper Latin transliteration is Kontsyert. Georgia guy (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This increases the strength of my opposition to an "accurate" translation, as it's apparent there isn't one single accurate transliteration. 99% of people looking for the album are going to enter "Kohuept" in the search box, and the other 1% are going to enter the Cyrillic. "Kohuept" is the name (in Latin characters) that "the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" (per WP:TITLE). Tevildo (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the people entering "Kohuept" or the cyrillic on the search box we got cheap redirects, that's not a problem. "Kontsyert" is actually more accurate than "Kontsert" as the cyrillic "E" reads "ye". Yet, often simply goes by "E". Not a problem either. Húsönd 16:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just as with Снова в СССР‎, there's the issue here of a title of an English-language work that was purposely chosen to be in a foreign language and alphabet by an English-language performer. There are several options here, some of which have been described above:
    • Leave it alone. Neither Billy Joel nor Paul McCartney speaks Russian; each chose a Russian-language title for effect, to emphasize the Soviet connection. It therefore differs from a Russian-language work that would normally be translated into English, including its title, such as Dead Souls or The Seagull.
    • Transliterate it. There are several possible authorities for Russian, but the most likely would be Kontsyert or Kontsert.
    • Translate it. Концерт means "concert". Call it Concert (Billy Joel album).
    • Use one of the similar-looking-letters approaches, such as KOHUEPT or Kohuept.
  • Wikipedia doesn't have a naming policy in this instance, and that might be a better place to start. However, I would suggest that while there may be some merit to transliteration or translation, the faux-Cyrillic letters would be a poor choice for a title, not least because the album title is not pronounced "co-hoo-ept" (and "KOHUEPT" has WP:CAPS issues as well). And yes, the article would indeed have laughingstock issues for readers familiar with Russian (though the use of these letter sequences to represent the album title by such scholarly sources as Columbia House should continue to be mentioned in the lead). ProhibitOnions (T) 20:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move, leave where it is now (in Cyrillic). ProhibitOnions sums up the issue very well. This is a sui generis case, and normal Wikipedia transliteration practice doesn't straightforwardly apply to it. This is not a normal Russian title from a Russian context, it's a title that was meant to be Cyrillic-script foreign island in an otherwise English environment from the start, so the most natural thing for us to do is to keep it as just that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to whatever "Rolling Stone" uses. This is not ASCII, not Latin lettered, and not English. WP:MOSTM also says not to use special typography. 70.55.85.143 (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Kohuept per our WP:Article title policy. We should note (in bold) the Cyrillic spelling as an alternative in the first sentence. For those who argue that the title should be in Cyrillic because that's how it appears on the album itself, and thus in some way "official", please read the second paragraph of the WP:COMMONAME section of our WP:Article titles policy (and the supporting explanatory essay WP:Official names). We do not necessarily use an "official name" as our article title... instead we use whatever our sources use when discussing the topic. That usage will be the most recognizable and natural choice (achieving two out of five of our basic title criteria). Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

Citations in favor of "Kohuept"

Ridiculous new title

[edit]

What a laughingstock. Just because some sources don't know what cyrillic is and won't care with its correct transliteration, we now have this aberration on what is supposed to be an accurate encyclopedia. "Kohuept" is nothing; it is not the subject of the article; it is not an English word; it is not how the subject is supposed to be read; it's not even pronounceable. How the above discussion was closed in favor of this I cannot comprehend. Húsönd 22:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible, just terrible. The policy PBS points to refers to "transliteration", which this travesty is not. ProhibitOnions (T) 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an outrage! Not only does "Kohuept" not make any sense, but I see no consensus to move here. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The travesty/outrage is the usage of "Kohuept" by a majority of English publications (a diagnosis I agree with). But it's not Wikipedia's job to prescribe something different just because our editors know better. — AjaxSmack 03:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, check the first pillar. Húsönd 08:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should definitely be at Концерт. While the naming conventions state to use English, the spirit of the convention means to use English when there is an acceptable English title. Meaning that names of cities should use whatever we call them in English, titles of books and whatnot are to be in English when we commonly refer to them as an English title. The title of this album is purposely Cyrillic -- it's an English word rendered in the Cyrillic alphabet. Therefore, the title of the album is, in fact, English. If we want to use the Roman alphabet, this should properly be at Concert (Billy Joel album). Kohuept should be a redirect. — MusicMaker5376 19:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I fail to see the above discussion as a clear non-controvesial consensus for move to 'Kohuept'. In my opinion, since the title was purposedly rendered in Russian, it should be treated like any Russian title; should either be 'Kontsert' (transliteration), 'Концерт'/'КОНЦЕРТ' (in Russian, recognizing the original intention to impose a certain artistic effect), or 'Concert (Billy Joel album)' (translation), in this particular order of reference. Constructs like 'COHUEPT' were only acceptable in a world where anything beyond English in ASCII code page was technically impossible to maintain in electronic and print media; I suppose we're well past this point. --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 11:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move, part 2

[edit]
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. Aervanath (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kohuept → Kontsert — Pace the above requested move discussion, having this article at "Kohuept" completely misses the point. It is a basic fact that the name of the album is not Kohuept, no matter what a bunch of music databases say. The name of the album is Концерт, the Russian word for "concert", which transliterates to "Kontsert". Dmitry makes a good point that most uses of "Kohuept" probably come from a time when it was much more difficult than today to use Cyrillic characters on the Internet or on magazines.-Sceptre (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another point to make is that I cannot think of an article where Russian words in Cyrillic have been transposed to their Latin look-a-likes. For example, Moskva is a disambiguation page, Mockba is not. Sankt-Peterburg is a redirect, Cahkt-Netepbypr is not. Rossiya is a disambugiation page, Poccnr is not. The only one that exists is a redirect: Choba b cccp to Снова в СССР. Hopefully we can fix this problem soon. Sceptre (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose overturning consensus. I understand the discomfort of those who know Russian, but the fact is that Kohuept, however "corrupt" it may be, is verifiably the conventional, most common name for this album in English and should therefore be our title. Certain editors may know the "true" title, but in this case it is different from the "verifiable" title, and the First Pillar's Verifiablity Policy constrains us to what is verifiable, not true.Erudy (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We should not use the common name of something when it is verifiably incorrect; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Do not overdo it. Sceptre (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest possible Oppose. When I become the Emperor of Wikipedia (which is only a matter of time), this article will be named Концерт, with all the correct redirects in place to ensure someone typing in "kohuept" will find the article. However, according to current policy, we must use the most common name used in English language sources, which, as has been clearly demonstrated below, is Kohuept. It's totally wrong (even the article itself describes it as a "corruption"), and looks totally ridiculous if you know any Russian, but that's how it's written in our sources. This makes it a strong case for ignoring the naming conventions—as it would clearly improve the encyclopedia to have the correct name of the album as the name of the article, and as it's the naming conventions that are preventing us from making that improvement—but that would require an overwhelming consensus in favor of Концерт. Jafeluv (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See above: we should not use the common name of something when it is verifiably incorrect; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Do not overdo it. Sceptre (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm changing from "weak oppose" to "oppose", because I feel the proposed title is the worst of the three. It's not the "correct" name of the album (which is Концерт), it's not the most commonly used name in reliable sources (which is Kohuept), and it certainly isn't the name that the readers wanting to find this article are going to type in the search box. According to policy, "[t]he names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." Jafeluv (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it wasn't clear from my original wording, I would support moving to Концерт. Jafeluv (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Go convince Rolling Stone they are wrong, and English usage will change, and so will we. In the meantime, follow the sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Need I emphasise this again? We do not use the common name of something when said common name is verifiably incorrect. Sceptre (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Make that Strongly opposed to single-purpose crusade. Sceptre can stop emphasizing a principle he made up; if this is what the album is called in English, it is no more "incorrect" than Florence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But its English name is not "Kohuept". The album's name on the cover is actual Cyrillic, not faux-Cyrillic. The correct English name for this album is "Kontsert", not "Kohuept", just as the Russian for Moscow is "Moskva", not "Mockba". Sceptre (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's an English language album by an English language artist released in English-speaking countries as Концерт, how is the correct English name anything other than Концерт? If you insist on a transliteration, that could be either Kontsert or Kontsyert or Koncert (all of which should probably be redirects, by the way). Furthermore, the Russian for Moscow is certainly not "Moskva", but "Москва". Again, "Moskva" is just one possible transliteration for the correct Russian name. Jafeluv (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did transliterate Москва to Moskva, but you're missing my point: while Kontsert may be acceptable, Kohuept is expressly not. Sceptre (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "...Its English name is not "Kohuept"...the correct English name for this album is "Kontsert"" How do you know? That's not what the sources noted below use. If you were arguing for a move to "Концерт," I might agree, but "Kontsert" seems to be bordering on original research. — AjaxSmack 15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ц is not U. Р is not P. Sceptre (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm not sure what has changed since the last request. I agree that Kohuept is ugly but it's what most reliable sources use (see below). To better understand, consider how most English speakers not versed in Cyrillic or Bill Joel minutiae might say "КОНЦЕРТ." — AjaxSmack 02:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like a broken record when I say this: we should not use the common name when it is verifiably inaccurate. Maybe I should put that in big 72-point letters? Sceptre (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it more "verifiably inaccurate" than "Kontsert"? Sources use either "Kohuept" or "Концерт," not, for the most part "Kontsert." — AjaxSmack 15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the album cover betrays the apparent name of "Kohuept" by including a tail on the Ц. If it wasn't there, you'd have a case. But it is there, and the album cover is demonstratably not written in Latin. Sceptre (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Kohuept" is one of the saddest applications of WP:V, and a clear case where the first pillar that says that we're an encyclopedia should overrun an utterly ridiculous mirroring of the ignorance demonstrated by so-called reliable sources on this case. Displaying "kohuept" is nothing but perpetuating the notion that "КОНЦЕРТ" cannot be read by most English speakers and therefore replacing the Cyrillic by similar Latin letters will do the trick. Honestly I can't conceive what foolishness will people think of next. The name of this subject is not meant to be read anything similar to "kohuep", and we're actually misleading readers by following others' bad example. Again, above all we're an encyclopedia, not some sloppy magazine. "Kontsert" might not be the perfect title, but at least readers will actually have the ability to read it correctly. Húsönd 18:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's ignorance. I think it's technical limitations. Back when the sources were compiling their Internet records, it would have been easier to do a quick Cyrillic-fauxLatin swap than accomodate for people who didn't have the character packs, or for databases who would only accept AZaz09. These days, however, you get Cyrillic, Greek, Arabic, Kanji, et cetera, out of the box. So it's easier to use those characters. Sceptre (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No technical limitation makes a person look at "ц" and change it into a "u", only a mind limitation would. If this title happened to have other Cyrillic characters such as "Ф", "Ж" or "Щ", I wonder what they would've come up with. We're not bound by these limitations, following them just makes us the bottom of jokes. Húsönd 18:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it originated as a technical or "mind" limitation doesn't matter. It's common usage now. The use of "Y" for "Þ" in "Ye Olde..." began as a technical limitation but Wikipedia doesn't change the title of Ye Olde Curiosity Shop to "The Old Curiosity Shop" or Ye Olde Cock Tavern to "The Old Cock Tavern" now because they're "incorrect." — AjaxSmack 15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ye Olde Cock Tavern is an example of deliberate misspelling, like the way faux-Cyrillic is used, to create a "medieval" feel. This album is not. I doubt Billy Joel and his producers sat down and said "We'll make up a word and put it in Cyrillic letters". They more likely said "well, this concert was performed in Russia... why not call it "Concert", but translate the title into Russian?". Occam's razor. Compare, also, Snova v SSSR, which is not at the Latin letters "Choba B CCCP" because it's a Russian phrase, "Back in the USSR", even though the International release is apparently by Raul MsSarthyech. Sceptre (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your arguments support a move to Концерт, not Kontsert. "Snova v SSSR" is a redirect to an article called Снова в СССР — not a Wikipedia-made transliteration article title. (Also note that, at Wikipedia, Occam's Razor is just O.R.) — AjaxSmack 12:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Our policies do not exist in a vacuum from common sense. And common sense tells us the title is in Russian (see ru:Концерт, which links to Concert (disambiguation)), rather than being a non-existent English word. And really, any title is fine as long as it isn't "Kohuept". Kontsert, Kontsyert, Концерт, Concert, are all acceptable names for this album. Kohuept is not. Sceptre (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Clever pun. I also think that this page should be at Концерт, and it wasn't exactly an absolutely clear consensus in my opinion when the article was moved in the first place. The transliteration rule is for names that were originally meant for Russian speakers (eg. Kitayskij Tank), in cases where there's no widely adopted translation. This album was meant for English speakers to be read as "концерт", and that's how we should write it. Most of our readers are unfamiliar with Cyrillic letters and will probably read the title as "kohuept" or similar (just as Снова в СССР will be read as Choba b CCCP) – that's why we have a transliteration, a translation and a phonetic transcription in the article. Jafeluv (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, or move to Концерт. (Keep redirects from Kohuept and KOHUEPT.) I see no more reason to perpetuate some old ephemeral music fan magazine's or pop music poster's typist or typesetter makeshifting when faced with a few Cyrillic letters, and the rest imitating. (Compare amateur astronomical typing makeshifts for lowercase Greek letters, such as @ for α, and u overstruck with / for η.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Kohuept" is not an amateur typing makeshift. It's used widely by a number of reliable English sources including the performer's website. See also my point above about "Y" for "Þ" in "Ye Olde..."— AjaxSmack 15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for moving to just about anything. When I came to the page today, I was shocked to see the "Faux-Latin" as the page title, then bewildered when I saw that the first line of the text itself calls this spelling corrupted — at least there's a discussion here. A common argument here seems to be what people are likely to type in the search box, but assuming that redirects from all other spellings will be kept, this would be irrelevant — they'd all find the page, no matter what they type, and they'd be redirected to the correct spelling. Now, if "Концерт" is not allowed because of some rules (don't know, I'm not a rules lawyer), and "Konts[y]ert" is not allowed because it's considered OR as was claimed, then at least change the title to "Billy Joel Album with Title in Cyrillic Letters That Wikipedia Cannot Represent" or something (and explain the issue in the body) instead of this abomination, even if it's commonly used. Last time I checked, WP was supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. If there's a lemma "Kohuept" or "KOHUEPT", it should say that it's common misspelling and refer to the real page, cf. nucular. 88.65.118.167 (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[edit]

A list of citations in favor of "Kohuept":

A list of citations in favor of "KOHUEPT"

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.

Ridiculous new title, part 2

[edit]

What a (sad) joke! I don't speak Russian, but I can tell at first sight that the letter "Ц" is not a "U" -- doesn't actually look too similar if you actually look at it for a moment. But apparently that's asking too much of Wikipedia writers (and we're talking about writers, not readers -- readers would be well served with a redirect). What a shame for a so-called "encyclopedia"! But I guess with these views I'm a commie and I should move to the Tse Tse Tse Pee ... 88.65.123.101 (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous procedure

[edit]

So the first move (from correct, or acceptable, to wrong) was made although there was no consensus, and the second move (from wrong to at least somewhat better) was rejected because there was no consensus! Very logical! And although cyrillic characters are technically possible, they're not allowed because of some rules. And a correct transliteration is also said to be forbidden by the rules, in favor of the only actually wrong alternative. If these things are really what the WP rules say (I highly doubt it, but I can't argue with TPTB), then the rules urgently need to be fixed!

For me, it's a sad day for WP. I have defended WP against criticism and even donated to WM, but I won't do this anymore in the face of such stupidity. I'll continue to use WP as an (unreliable) source of information, but every time I'll listen to this album will remind of this joke. So long and thanks for all the f***! 88.65.123.101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Post-closure discussion

[edit]
Copied from User talk:Aervanath:

No consensus? Can you elaborate? Consensus isn't just an up-and-down vote. The "most commonly used name in sources = article name" argument wasn't as strong as it seemed, given that the sources are demonstratably wrong. And hell, there is a six-three split for the Russian title (as in, one oppose !voter explicitly supported the Russian title, shifting the balance in terms of raw numbers). Sceptre (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that these discussions are not a vote; sorry I didn't expand more at the time, here's an actual rationale:
Basically it came down to arguments vs. numbers. As you point out, it was 6 to 3 in favor of using the Cyrillic lettering, but none of the arguments for using the lettering overcame the multiple reliable sources provided by the opposition. And yes, I can certainly see the point of view that the currently most common lettering is "wrong"; but our concepts of "right" and "wrong" are notoriously subjective, and as an encyclopedia we must strive to be as objective as possible. So I found the minority arguments much more convincing and policy-based in that respect. However, the majority still had a point, so I didn't feel comfortable closing it entirely against the numbers. Thus, a finding of no consensus. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And there's perfectly good reasons why those sources use Latin letters: it's not that they think the title is actually "Kohuept"; it's that that was the easiest way they could render it. Cyrillic support in any OS before Vista and OS X 10.5 was dodgy, and, for a store, it's easier for them to list the product in Latin look-a-like letters, e.g. [1] compared to [2]. But we are not an online store. We're an encyclopedia capable of redirects and capable of Cyrillic support. We should strive for accuracy, not blindly following the example of those capable of neither. Sceptre (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, neither you nor I can actually read the minds of those who made the decision to render it in Latin and not Cyrillic. To do so would amount to original research. It was clearly demonstrated that reliable English sources use "Kohuept", Yes, some of the sources provided are online stores, but the majority were not.--Aervanath (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it wouldn't be quite as ridiculous if there hadn't been first a move in the opposite direction without consensus, and now "no consensus" is cited as a reason to keep it. Well, thanks for pissing me off from WP (see my comments on the article's talk page)! 88.65.123.101 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you are choosing to give up on Wikipedia because of one outcome you do not agree with. If I had done that, I would have left long ago.--Aervanath (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only the outcome, also the arbitrary way that those in power choose to apply the (actual or fictional) rules. Why is "no consensus" a reason for one move, but not for the other? I've still seen no explanation for that. BTW: "Unfortunately, neither you nor I can actually read the minds of those who made the decision to render it in Latin and not Cyrillic." It was rendered in CYRILLIC, NOT in LATIN on the ORIGINAL CD COVER! Have you actually seen it? (There's a picture on the article page, though with bad contrast.) Or since when are magazines and other SECONDARY sources more realiable than the ORIGINAL? Contributions/88.65.126.209 (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we've made a practice of relying on secondary sources over primary sources; see Wikipedia:OR#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources for the full policy. Also see WP:Official names, which, while not policy itself, is a very good description of current practice with regard to what we call an article. English is full of corrupted versions of foreign words: I doubt you would object to my use of the word "Nazi" instead of the full version "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", would you? We don't always call something by its original name, or its official name. As for your question about no consensus being a reason for one move, but not another, I'm not sure what other move you're referring to.--Aervanath (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ignore the Nazi shit. Apart from that, if the official WP policy is really like that, well then thanks again for warning me! You know, I've actually been so foolish to look at WP in search of correct answers in the past. Now I know that's not the goal, well, I can just do a Google search to find out which is the most popular (as opposed to correct) answer. Good we have that cleared. But you ask what other move??? Well, the first "Requested move" (to Kohuept, which was successful) right there on the same talk page. Did you actually look at the context? Also, I don't really except you can tell me why "Снова в СССР" (which was mentioned in the discussion) is allowed to stand under this name and "CHOBA B CCCP" is only a redirect, even though this would be, like, correct. Contributions/88.65.126.209 (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to impolitely dismiss my points as "shit", then please stay off my talk page. Any more posts here by you will be removed. Goodbye.--Aervanath (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does, however, make the album an outlier. In fact, apart from untitled/eponymous albums (which normally take the form "Untitled X album" or "X (album)", where X is the artist) or soundtracks (which sometimes take the form of "X (soundtrack)", to which X is the work the soundtrack is used in), the style guidelines for albums actually say that we should always go with the title on the cover, or an acceptable transliteration if it's not in the Latin alphabet. Sceptre (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Sorry, I've re-read that section of the WikiProject Albums page twice now and I don't see where it says that. Also, I note that the section ends by referring users to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which starts out with "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources." It certainly seems that "Kohuept" is the most commonly used English version, regardless of what the album cover says.--Aervanath (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If the album title uses the Latin alphabet, the article name should be at that title. Translations of titles in languages other than English should not be used as titles unless such a translation is commonly used as a title for the album in the English-speaking world." and "If the album title does not use the Latin alphabet, the article name should be the transliterated form of the title using Latin characters.". "Kohuept" is not a translation; it's a corruption. Sceptre (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but corruptions are extremely common in English, and most of our words come from corruptions of other languages. Practically the entire language is a corruption. Also, I should not that none of the quotes you cite above refer to the title on the album cover, so nothing I've seen so far overrides WP:COMMONNAME.--Aervanath (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it doesn't change the fact that the album's title is written in Cyrillic. Thus, per the album naming guidelines, which supersede COMMONNAME because COMMONNAME only applies when other naming conventions don't, it should be either left as it is or transliterated. Sceptre (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it doesn't say specifically that the album's title is definitely what's actually written on the album. The album's title is whatever most people think it is, which in this case is clearly the corruption.--Aervanath (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's just wrong. If I got everyone to believe that the new Jonas Brothers album is called "Tits and Ass", even though it isn't, it still wouldn't be the album's title. Sceptre (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that it would be. I've posted to WP:AN to get some other eyes here.--Aervanath (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Crossposted onto Talk:Kohuept to centralise discussion. Sceptre (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the above was copied from User talk:Aervanath. Please comment below this line.--Aervanath (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I add something: While prohibitions against OR prevent us from divining the intent of the producers on our own, if we knew for sure that the Cyrillic was for decoration, I would say that Kontsert would be a sensible choice. The fact that the Cyrillic is decoration would mean that the actual name (pronounced "Kontsert") would in principle have nothing to do with how it is written down.

WRT the discussion of "Nazi" rather than its German name, I think the argument could be attacked on the grounds that "Nazi" is not intended to replace the proper noun for the said party. It is a "corruption" in the sense that it is a contraction or an abbreviation because the word is used in different contexts to the full "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei". 118.90.89.74 (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move, part 3

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Talk:Концерт → Kohuept — The only consensus in this history of the discussions on this talk page was to move to Kohuept, yet it appears to have been changed anyway. Wikipedia is not the authority on names, it merely uses citeable information found elsewhere. In this case, there are numerous citations for the English look-alike "Kohuept". It is typeable on an English keyboard, whereas "Концерт" is not (this is English Wikipedia after all), and is commonly used in English publications. WP:UE states, "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese or Russian names, must be transliterated ... However if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic". (Not to mention, the final character of Концерт appears as an "m" when italicized, which is even more confusing than anything else). Me Three (talk to me) 20:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the title with the most consensus, actually, was Концерт, followed by Kohuept, and then Kontsert. Again, I must stress the difference between listing it as Kohuept for technical reasons and listing it as Kohuept for factual reasons; most of the sources and their databases pre-date widespread Cyrillic alphabet support. This is a widespread problem on Wikipedia: just taking a source's words without thinking of the reasons for saying those words. And it isn't confusing when you realise it's in Russian; and most people will refer to it as "the Russian album" or "the Russian concert" than "Kohuept" (which is awkward to pronounce). Also, "not typeable on an English keyboard" doesn't give a reason to move; all it gives is a reason to give a redirect. Also, compare Paul McCartney's Soviet album. Sceptre (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Un-italicize title?

[edit]

Now that album titles are italicized by default, the title of this page looks like "Kohuepm" which is even less recognizable to English-speakers than the Cyrillic title "Концерт". May I suggest that we use "italic title=no" in the infobox to at least give English-speaking users a chance to recognize the title in Russian when they see it? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the U.S.S.R.

[edit]

I removed the following sentence relating to Joel's single release of "Back in the U.S.S.R.": It ended his record-setting streak of 39 Billboard Top 40 singles, from the start of a career, written by the artist who performed it.

There were three reasons why I removed it:

  1. Joel did not have a streak of 39 Billboard Top 40 singles. He had a total of 33 Billboard Top 40 singles in his entire career, five of which were released after "Back in the U.S.S.R."
  2. He did not have a streak of having all the singles that he wrote from the start of his career hit the top 40. As can be seen at Billy Joel discography, his previous singles "Worse Comes to Worst", "Travelin' Prayer", "Goodnight Saigon", and "Baby Grand", all of which he wrote, had missed the top 40. (There are other songs listed in his singles discography that have "—" listed as their chart position; I can't be sure that they were all released in the U.S. But during the main part of Joel's career, a song could only hit the Billboard Hot 100 if it was released as a single, so we can be sure that any song from that era with a chart position lower than 40 was released as a single but missed the top 40.)
  3. If he had a streak of having all his top 40 singles being songs that he wrote -- which, apparently, he did -- it wasn't ended by "Back in the U.S.S.R.", because that single didn't even hit the Hot 100, much less the top 40.

So whatever the sentence was supposed to mean, it doesn't seem to have been accurate. On the other hand, I kept the following sentence in the article, because, as far as I can tell, it is accurate: Joel's cover of The Beatles' "Back in the U.S.S.R." became the first single released by Joel that was written by someone other than himself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4

[edit]
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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Kontsert. -- tariqabjotu 06:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Концерт → Kohuept – The 2009 closure is in error, as there was no intermediate requested move discussion between #1 (2008) and #2 (2009) and #2 closed as no consensus, that should automatically result in the reinstatement of the closure result of #1, as the bold move wade made against an existing consensus, and the #2 move request did not end up supporting it; WP:BRD. Further, WP:UE/WP:AT, we do not use Cyrillic in article titles, they must be transliterated or translated. The existing references use "Kohuept" and "Konstert", not "Концерт". Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey 4

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • I am not an expert on transliteration from Cryllic alphabets into English (understatement) and I don't know which one is the best transliteration, but I do know that we need to transliterate to some Latin-script title. Red Slash 09:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
  • Comment: the UE policy directing us that we must use English didn't come into force until October 2009, as far as I can tell. Sceptre (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not using WP:UE as the basis of the rename, it's a supporting element. The basis is the fact that an existing consensus was ignored, and the subsequent no consensus should have returned to the prexisting consensus decision. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kontsert. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kontsert&oldid=1211225395"