Talk:Sinking of Dalniy Vostok

name

I have moved the article to the standard transliteration of the Russian name. μηδείς (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

totally against WP:RUS, which gives Dalny. Please move it again. This is cumbersome. -- Y not? 11:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

When I created the article a few days ago, I named it "Sinking of the Dalniy Vostok", because Dalniy Vostok was the most common name used in press accounts. Another editor, in good faith, moved it to what they believed was proper. This appears to all come down to the fourth word in the title, and its correct spelling in Russian. I added the relevant "name" template on the articles main page so that editors with knowledge of the Russian language can provide input. Thanks! Juneau Mike (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Note The vessel information site vesselfinder.com lists the name as Dalniy Vostok: [1] as does the Maritime-connector.com [2] Juneau Mike (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, either WP:COMMONNAME applies, and we should use Dalniy, or WP:RUS would point to Dalny. The current way is no good, in either case. -- Y not? 20:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, "Y". User:Brandmeister moved the page back. Thanks to both of you for your help! Juneau Mike (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I won't argue this, but the name is printed as "Dalny Vostok, Dalniy Vostok, Dalniy Vostok and Dal'nij Vostok" in news sources. Only the last would be used by experts. Simply count the actual numbers of Russian symbols. Since /l/ and /l'/ are totally different sounds in Russian (as different as ch and j in English) and y is the vowel ы, somwhat like the vowel in English "sick", and not the sound found in you which is symbolized by the ҋ found in the Russian spelling, the Dalniy spelling is as sloppy and ignorant as spelling jalapeño "halapeno"; in other words, typical arrogant English parochialism and ignorance. μηδείς (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeesh.... I consider that a personal attack. A misdirected one at that, as I'm a native Russian speaker. As for the merits of your position, you're simply rearguing the discussions behind WP:RUS. Palatalized consonants are very hard for non-speakers of Slavic languages, and the little apostrophe doesn't help the English/parochial crowd pronounce it correctly. I prefer Dalny myself, but Dalniy is good enough. Save your vitriol. -- Y not? 01:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

That's Sheesh, not Yeesh. And if you are a native Russian speaker who can spell Russian and understand the IPA, you know that ль /ʎ/ and л /l/ are entirely different phonemes (pol'ka vs polka), as are /ы/ and /ӣ/ There's also the IPA transcription that makes it clear that ˈdɑlʲnʲɪj vɐsˈtok is nowhere near the same as ˈdɑlnɨ vɐsˈtok], or the absurd ˈdɑlniɨ vɐsˈtok]. WP:RUS is a mere essay, which I believe is indeed ignorant and parochial.

Pretty sure I meant Yeesh, an interjection of apprehension or displeasure at the sudden appearance of an ad hominem attack in a conversation about romanization convention. Not Sheesh, a dismissive interjection. -- Y not? 10:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I am saying that we wouldn't purposefully mis-transcribe French, German or Spanish, so why should we slaughter Russian, when the expert transcription is well known? It's as wrong as saying "down, ye!" and "doll knee" are the same in English. As I said, I won't argue the point, as in file an RfC, but I think expressing my objection is what this talk page is for, not kowtowing to sloppiness. μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Look also at wiktionary, which also gives the phonemic /Dálʹnij Vostók/ μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Medeis You have made many, many fine additions to this article. As for my part, I have only made small changes to your prose (replacing "ice-cold water" with "frigid", etc.) Your changes have been positive ones, and you have edited in good faith. That being said, bringing the articles title in line with how things are done on the English Language Wikipedia seems like a pretty minor change. When I saw that the name was in dispute, I asked for discussion. I cannot read or write Russian, and I know about 5 words of the language. Needless to say I am not the one to make such a decision about a page move. I assume there is a Russian Wikipedia, and if this article is mirrored there, it will be interesting how the ships name will be spelled there. While I see the argument in support of the page move here, and have supported it, as this is the English Wikipedia, in this case I see no problem with the common name being used in the English language press being used here. Thanks again for your help with this article. I mean that sincerely. Juneau Mike (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess the best way to look at my opinion is that I think we should have different words for Iron and Steel, while most people have no idea of the difference. I still think the actual, academic transcription would be better, and I think Y's arguments are specious at best. If he actually writes Russian and understands IPA he should say so. I speak the Русиньскый язык as a third-generation American, and am trained in po-moskovski Russian and linguistics at the post-grad level.

What matters is our readers. I'll probably just end up adding a proper professional transcription, as is given at wiktionary, identical to my transcription at the phonemic level. The title doesn't matter per se as long as the redirect exists; the real problem I see is that none of Dalny, Dalniy, or Dalni even approximates reality, in the ways I have described above. We don't pull this nonsense with Vietnamese or Spanish or German, and we shouldn't be pulling it with Russian. μηδείς (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that the eruption of vitriol has continued. I understand the IPA and I precisely understand your points. You're quite right from a technical phonetic perspective, but you're wrong from an encyclopedia writing perspective. We need to give the average reader something they are capable of grasping, which is why WP:RUS calls for Dalny. It omits a lot of detail, but it gets the point across. Dal'nij is a bit much for parochial people, and will have them thinking the damn thing ends with ʤ. Not good. -- Y not? 10:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting though the above may be to those interested in academic and technical transliteration, are we forgetting that this is the name of a ship? The name is what the registration authorities say it is, regardless of whether it is spelled correctly or not. The Russian registers give the name of the ship in both Cyrillic and Latin scripts: ДАЛЬНИЙ ВОСТОК and DALNIY VOSTOK. Davidships (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Great point, Davidships. On Page 141 of that registry, the ship is listed as Dalniy Vostok. That settles it, this article has an accurate title. Thanks for your help! Juneau Mike (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I did not realize that a Russian ship would have a official title in latin characters. Agree with using whatever the ship's registration uses. -- Y not? 13:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Fishing

What were they fishing for? Rmhermen (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

They were trawling, which means whatever gets caught in the net, which might largely include flatfish and crustaceans if they were bottom trawling, and oilfish if the net was near the surface. Once on board the catch would be separated by category, and unwanted things thrown back. One source has a picture of a crewman holding some sort of crab or lobster, so it seems likely they were bottom trawling. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The reports are saying "pollock" which is probably the Alaskan pollock which is a Pacific relative of the true pollock of the Atlantic, and a member of the cod family. They are whitefish, which is associated with feeding at depth. μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Really? A fishing trawler that size, with 132 crew? 110.147.165.69 (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Your question about the crew size is unclear, especially give the question here is what they were fishing for. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Map

Outline Map of Far Eastern Federal District

I'm glad we have a map centering on the sea of Okhotsk. Should we keep the pretty topographical map as is, or use the plain map, illustrated here, which better shows the international boundaries and location? μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Reactions

Do we have to have completely non-noteworthy condolences from i.a. Armenia and the Seychelles? In fact, none of them, except Putin's of course, have any particular relevance to this particular maritime tragedy and add nothing of importance. Just routine political gestures. Where are the statements by the governments of Myanmar, Vanuatu, Ukraine and Latvia whose citizens perished? Hmmm. Davidships (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well obviously we don't have to list every one we find, but I find it notable that the large number of lives lost has brought about reactions from world leaders. And the sections position at the bottom of all other content means that any page visitors can easily ignore it if they are not interested. Thanks for your question. Juneau Mike (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

WMN source

The World Maritime News website has a report that covers some of the reasons for the loss of the ship. Mjroots (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. With the Investigative Committee now directly involved, there are likely to be more than a few heads rolling. EDIT: Though from the sound of it there will be some very deserving souls indeed among that number. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Update death toll

The death toll has been revised to 57 by Russian authorities. Turns out that 2 bodies were placed in the same "container". The new death toll is 57, with 12 missing. I have revised the article accordingly. Juneau Mike (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

it's true? need showing titanic how sinking

i don't know but it's true article but only look where sink no how looking but ship sinking can show how sinking ship like RMS titanic? well i want see and that titanic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silviu200530 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)