Jump to content

Talk:Tolyatti

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

Romanization and Spelling Nonsense

[edit]

Why Wikipedia "rules" of Romanization of Russian Cyrillic are not based on accepted rules of transliteration such as GOST or ISO but are pure Americanized schizophrenia, and wtf is Tolyatti, which in the German Wikipedia becomes preposterous Toljatti ? The name of the city is Togliatti, not how it some naturalized American may hear it phonetically. Why not then spell Cologne as Kyoln in the English Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.55.138.7 (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's complicated. See the move discussion below. Thinking that it's not complicated but is simply a matter of your belief versus the obviously-wrong belief of morons and montebanks probably isn't the best way to approach fraught and complicated issues, I think -- here, or in life generally. Herostratus (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old talk

[edit]

Which is the official spelling of the town in the Latin alphabet -- Tolyatti or Togliatti? I've seen both...

"Togliatti", because it's named in honor of Palmiro Togliatti. "Tolyatti" would be re-transcription into latin, thus wrong. 80.66.66.217 05:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Togliatti", see the road sign on the way to the city [1] Milenkov

A road sign only proves this spelling is the preference of the locals. Wikipedia is not guided by the preferences of the locals.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 27, 2010; 21:00 (UTC)
I am from Togliatti / Togliatty / Tolyatti ! As a citizen I may say that it does not matter how you will write it in English. But usually we use TOGLIATTI on our road signs.--VzZzA (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stary/Novy gorod

[edit]

Here are some examples of such kind of district names usage:

  • [2] - Samara region public transportation encyclopedia
Город имеет весьма специфическую структуру, представляющую собой три обособленных района, разделенных обширными лесными массивами и связанных между собой двумя-тремя дорогами. Фактически это три отдельных города, живущих каждый своей жизнью и в некоторой степени независимых друг от друга.
...
Центральный район, или Старый Город, расположен на возвышенности, в 4 км от берега Волги.
...
Автозаводский район, или Новый Город, находится в 10 км к западу от Старого Города.
  • [3] - About:Tolyatti, RBC Realty.
Административным центром Тольятти является Центральный район или так называемый "Старый Город". Здесь размещаются большинство городских учреждений, банков, культурных заведений.
  • [4] - Moi Krug forums: a random topic about Tolyatti
Тольятти прелестный город - с ним связаны только теплые воспоминания. А еще довольно необычно все, вплоть даже до мелочей - Старый город, Новый город...

How more do you need? xyzman 20:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be quite sufficient. Thanks for taking time to look this up!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome ;) xyzman 22:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

[edit]

"Tolyatti" is the wrong transcription! 'Togliatti only!!!!' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.5.139 (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to cite some sources confirming your statement that "Tolyatti" is a "transcription" and that it is "wrong"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would Office of Mayor be a proper source of this? Any educational institutions and companies which are named after the city and use Togliatti in their names? Check external weblinks. I do not think that Wikipedia should be a source of misspellings.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Milenkov (talk • contribs)
This is not a "misspelling" by any means. If you look diligently enough, you'll discover that both spellings are used fairly equally. The reason why our article uses "Tolyatti" and not "Togliatti" is in our guidelines for romanization of Russian names (including place names). The romanization of place names is based on the BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian—a system developed for use in the English language specifically to address the romanization of Russian toponyms. With that in mind, there is nothing unusual with use choosing "Tolyatti" to refer to the city but still retain the "Togliatti" spelling to refer to the organizations located in that very same city.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 27, 2010; 13:57 (UTC)
The BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian does not apply here, because the name of the city is nothing to do with Russian language. It is of Italian origin. That is why it is used in 'Togliatti' way in OFFICIAL sources. Milenkov
What applies here is WP:RUS, which is based on BGN/PCGN. And are you joking when saying that a name of a city in Russia has nothing to do with the Russian language? "Togliatti" is, of course, an Italian word, but "Тольятти" is a Russian word (meaning both the person and the city), and "Tolyatti" is the romanization of that Russian word as applied to the city (but not to the person, or to other entities, all of which need to be reviewed individually). As far as the romanization of place names goes (be it the Wikipedia's guidelines or the original BGN/PCGN), the origins of a name do not matter the slightest. What matters is how the word is written in the language of origin. That's simply the way romanization works, and that's exactly why we do the things the way we do and not differently. Wikipedia is not in the business of inventing rules; whenever possible, we look at the rules used in the real (and English-speaking) world and borrow them.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 27, 2010; 14:59 (UTC)
Whether you like it or not, but the official name of the city is Togliatti (borrowed from Italian). Double-check the OFFICIAL way of spelling the city's name (see the Office of Mayor as a guidance, Russian Post, or documents of twin cities: Wolfsburg or Piacenza). Of course, Wikipedia may reinvent the wheel and to Romanize this Roman word in a brand new way: Tolyatty, Toliatti, Toljatti, Toliatty etc. However, it kills credibility of Wikipedia articles big time. Milenkov
The only official name of the city is "Тольятти" (in Russian). There are multiple ways of how that official name can be romanized; the one English Wikipedia standardizes on is BGN/PCGN-based. If the city officials want to use something different, it's their full right to do so. Their choice, however, has no effect whatsoever on our practices and guidelines—we tend to stick with industry standards and English usage; our goal is not to cater to Italian tourists or whatever. I don't see how sticking with industry standards "kills Wikipedia credibility". Inventing own standards, however, very much does so.
At any rate, why pick on us? Why not, say, write a letter to Britannica and berate them for following industry standards?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 27, 2010; 15:41 (UTC)
Sticking to wrong name of the city it never had is the best way to damage the quality of the article. Togliatti is the name used as the official name whether Wikipedia editors like it or not. At least, this is the name used in the international agreements and contracts[5][6][7], English-language books[8] and so on. It is a bit too late to change it to Tolyatti or any other way. It had to be done 50 years ago. You may keep vandalizing this article, but Togliatti will retain its proper name: Togliatti. Milenkov
I am sorry, but you are yet to explain why the currently used name is "wrong". The facts certainly don't support that theory—we have major encyclopedias, a great number of maps, and a considerable amount of literature all sticking to this supposedly "wrong" name. Note that not once had I called the "Togliatti" variant "wrong"—it is equally correct. It is just not the variant we use to standardize on. Just as we do not standardize on GOST 16876-71, or ISO 9, or ALA-LC, we don't take into account the "origins of a Russian name"—doing so, in fact, would undermine the very standardization efforts we are trying to encourage and promote the anathema of original research.
Furthermore, you don't seem to understand what an "official name" is. Contrary to what you believe, it is not the spelling used on the English version of the official site. Consider this—if they were to make a typo in the name on the official website, would we be obliged to use it nevertheless? What if they switch their preference later on; should we be tracking it and move our articles accordingly? What if the English version of the website is taken down, what are we to do then?
Like I mentioned above, the only "official name" the city has is "Тольятти". Russian is the only official language in Samara Oblast, so by definition there can't be any other "official names" in any other languages. What they use on their English website is a conscious choice of one of the spellings in use, but it by no means has any official status. Not that we would be required to use it even if it did—the article about Kiev, for example, is still where it is regardless of "Kyiv" being the "official English spelling endorsed by the Ukrainian government". This is because we use conventional English names first, and when there are multiple conventional variants in use (like with Tolyatti/Togliatti), we use the one which is closest to the industry practices. In this case, those practices happen to favor "Tolyatti". As for the alternative spelling, it is prominently featured in the lede and is incorporated into the system of disambigs/redirects to cover all contingencies; just how it should be. And please don't throw vandalism accusations around so easily—it will not help move your point across, and I thought we are trying to have a productive discussion here, not a pissing contest of who can revert more stuff or throw more insults at the opponent?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 27, 2010; 16:42 (UTC)
To me, the official name is the name used in the the documents issued/endorsed by authorities (official websites, agreements, maps, passports). Books by Gorbachev (No.1 person in the country in his time) seem to me quite an official source as well (as they are translated with the highest degree of accuracy). Bilateral agreements between countries may also be a good way to learn which name is official (Togliatti) and which one is just a misspelling (e.g. Tolyatti or Toliatty, although they sometimes used by mortals). Official names of state-run institutions (e.g. universities) are also an indicator. How would you place Togliatti State University into the city of Tolyatti? Prove that you are right by showing some examples of that degree of confidence (not a home-drawn 'map' or Facebook profile, please). If you want to use an alternative way of spelling Togliatti everywhere, prove your point, please. It may at least somewhat justify Tolyatti as an alternative spelling and not as a pure spelling error.Milenkov
As a food for thought, Wolfsburg, Piacenza and Colmar do believe that their twin city is Togliatti[9][10][11] and not Tolyatti. Prince Michael of Kent did visit Togliatti and received visits from Togliatti[12] and not Tolyatti. Do you think that they are also wrong because those lazy b...s did not read a brilliant Wikipedia article on Tolyatti?Milenkov
But see, that's the thing—what is an obvious choice to you, is not necessarily an obvious (or even valid) choice to someone else. Considering that "someone else" include BGN & PCGN—two high-profile bodies that developed the most commonly used Russian romanization system to be used specifically in the English-language official publications—I'd side with them over you any time. On your other points—try framing them in terms of Kiev/Kyiv in your head, and things should immediately get clearer. Bilateral agreements using the "Kyiv" spelling exist as well. Ukrainians tend to use "Kyiv" on their official websites in English. Some western sources adopted the spelling also. The spelling itself is correct. But, so is "Kiev". Now replace "Kiev" with "Tolyatti" and "Kyiv" with "Togliatti". See? Local preferences, no matter how strong, do not override the predominant practices used in the English language.
Regarding "Togliatti State University" (1), I see no more problem of using it than I have with saying that "the city of Tolyatti (2) was named after Palmiro Togliatti (3)". The first is the name of the organization (outside of scope of BGN/PCGN, and falling neatly under the "conventional names" clause of WP:RUS), the second is the name of the city, and the third is the name of a person, who is, of course, known in English under his Italian name.
On Wolfsburg, Piacenza and Colmar, those are places in Germany, Italy, and France. The spellings they would use come from the German, Italian, and French languages. I know neither of these three languages well, which is why I don't go into the German, Italian, and French Wikipedias and tell them how they do everything wrong and should be doing everything the way I like/think is right.</sarcasm> With English, all three cities have the same variety of options to choose from as do the people in charge of the English version of Tolyatti's official website—they can use any of the Russian romanization systems in existence or go with an alternative conventional name if that suits them so. With us, since this is the English Wikipedia, only the practices used in the English language matter. How can that not be obvious?
Lastly, please note that I don't have to "prove" anything to you (and hey, the Britannica link wasn't "proof" at all? Do you think I faked "homebrewed" it or something?). I am merely enforcing what our own guidelines say we should be doing. The guidelines had been reviewed by the community and adopted as acceptable (and trust me, the Tolyatti issue did come up). If you disagree with my interpretation of the guidelines, please feel free to open a request for comment. If you disagree with the guidelines themselves, please feel free to develop an alternative system or an amendment to the existing system and present it to the community for discussion/possible adoption. If you merely want to see this particular article under a different title, go ahead, file a move request (in fact, I strongly encourage you do so, for whatever the outcome, it'll free up my time by making it unnecessary to ever argue over this again) and make your point. Whatever you do, however, don't try to re-introduce the spelling you seem to so strongly prefer. There is nothing wrong with being bold and making a change, but you should resort to discussion and proper procedural channels when your change is reverted (see WP:BRD). Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 27, 2010; 18:21 (UTC)
Britannica is a bright idea. If you rely on Britannica to that extent and you are ready to override an official and the most common way of calling the city, you have to scrap your own comments above and to rename the city to Tolyattigrad[13]. Hey, this is what Britannica suggests, isn't it? It's not all. I do suggest you changing Moscow to Moskva and Saint Petersburg to Sankt-Peterburg in a matter of urgency. This is what "right" romanization suggests, isn't it?Milenkov
Oh, please; Britannica is just one example. It is, however, worth remembering that Britannica, like us, is also an encyclopedia, and, naming-wise, they are facing the same problems Wikipedia does. Common sense should tell you that people writing treaties, press releases, and official websites have completely different goals from those of the academia and Wikipedia. A simple trip to a library will show you that Britannica is far from being alone on that stance. Or do a simple search on google books—are you going to dismiss every single use there as easily as you did with Britannica and continue calling "Tolyatti" a "misspelling"? Face the facts already!
On the rest of your "points", there's no need to be facetious—that's not what our romanization guidelines suggest at all (which you could learn firsthand if you read them). "Moscow" is a conventional name (as per that very same WP:RUS' definitions) way outside of the gray area Tolyatti finds itself is, and so is "Saint Petersburg". My good ol' Geographica atlas, for example, does list conventional names along with BGN/PCGN romanization—it has "Moskva (Moscow)" and "Sankt-Peterburg (St. Petersburg)". As for Tolyatti? It's just "Tolyatti". Apparently "Togliatti" wasn't deemed conventional enough to warrant inclusion. It is not our right to override experts' conclusions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 27, 2010; 20:12 (UTC)
I think that enough was said. There is no need to invent the city a better name than it has now. Wikipedia does not seem to be the best place for toponymic mess. The official, most commonly used and, therefore, conventional name (as per WP:RUS' definitions), unsurprisingly, is Togliatti[14][15][16][17]. Therefore, I am moving the article to 'Togliatti'.Milenkov
Sorry to break it to you, but that's not how WP:RUS defines "conventional name" at all (and it covers situations like those with the oxforddictionaries link, by the way). It's how you define "conventional name". Please by all means file a move request, but don't move the article yourself—that will be classified as disruption.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 27, 2010; 21:00 (UTC)
WP:RUS: A conventional name of a place is the name listed in major English dictionaries and should be preferred over default romanization at all times. Clarifications - if a dictionary lists several variants of the name, use the main one. In the particular case, Togliatti is the main variant + it is the name listed in major English dictionaries.Milenkov

This being the first time I've seen this article, I had always seen the city referred to as "Togliatti" (compare on Google Books[18][19] and Google Scholar[20][21]). However, Britannica[22] and Columbia[23] both use "Tolyatti". Olessi (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, that was the point all along :) As per WP:RUS, when alternative (and fairly equally used) spellings exist, the one that's closest to WP:RUS should be used as the title. "Tolyatti" is quoted as a specific example.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one that is spelled most commonly in English should be used as per wiki policy; see Kiev or Gomel for example. I say this page should be re-named.--Львівске (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The overall usage of "Tolyatti" and "Togliatti" in English is more or less equal, with "Tolyatti" being a prevalent variant when referring to the modern city (as opposed to the city in, say, WWII context). Additionally, as this is a geographic name, using the romanization which is closest to BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian makes more sense. Policy-wise, WP:RUS is a guideline guiding this exact issue (did you get a chance to see the comments above?) With all that in mind, I see no need for renaming.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:18, June 22, 2009 (UTC)
Equal? Prevalent? Which WII context? Would you be able to substantiate your points?—Milenkov
FYI, you are responding to a year old comment. I don't have my notes from last summer, but I actually went to my local library and pulled whatever I could find about the city. In the WWII context (such as books about the Eastern Front, but not necessarily about the city), the books I found tended to refer to the city as "Togliatti". In more modern context (general reference, economic reviews, doing business, touristy stuff, etc.), the "Tolyatti" spelling was more common. All in all, the usage levels were comparable. A basic google books research will also show that both spellings are used fairly equally—if you don't forget that the "Togliatti" search will be statistically skewed because it refers to both the city, the person, and the organizations using it in their name, as well because this spelling will be used alongside "Tolyatti" to explain the origins of the name; whereas "Tolyatti" refers predominantly to the city only. And as to what should be done when multiple spellings compete for the "title" of the "conventional English name", this is aptly explained in the comments to the RM nomination below.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 15:59 (UTC)
I see. The problem (with WWII context) is that the city was named Togliatti in 1964. Furthermore, Google Books search on "Togliatti Volga -Tolyatti" returns 2730 hits[24], while "Tolyatti Volga -Togliatti" returns only 413 hits[25]. "City of Togliatti" returns 253 hits[26], while "city of Tolyatti" returns 32 hits[27]. I do find "Tolyatti" very far from being prevalent, or even close in usage to "Togliatti".—Milenkov
On the first point—many books on WWII were written after 1964; are you surprised they would give the new name alongside the old name? On the second point, you seem to be making a common mistake of counting raw hits instead of looking at the types of results, as well as completely ignoring my point on the reasons why the data will always be skewed towards "Togliatti"—kind of important in this case! See WP:SET for more details. When you properly discount for these factors, you'll see the levels of use to be much more comparable. Not that it matters—as our guidelines (for very good reasons) explicitly favor one type of sources (reference/industry standards) over anything else, no amount of that "anything else" can override it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 16:59 (UTC) 16:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You did not read my response well enough. I do suggest you reading Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME as well. I would encourage you to demonstrate your results in search engine test. As for the quality, enough media links were given in RM. —Milenkov
As the person contesting both the current choice of the title and the guidelines, it is your job to do the demonstration. You've done an admirable job of collecting a wild variety of links of all kinds, but you have not demonstrated how they override the existing guidelines in any way, shape, or form.
Let's start with COMMONNAME, just as you have suggested. As per the Common names section of that guideline, [a]rticles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. "Reliable source", as per WP:RS, include the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. That's already a good hint about the unacceptability of search engine tests as primary tools of establishing anything, isn't it? Anyway, let's go on. WP:COMMONNAME refers editors to the WP:EN "use English" guideline with regards to foreign names and anglicization. The first line of WP:EN declares that [t]he title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works) [emphasis mine—Ё]. Further on, WP:UE states that [i]f one name is clearly most commonly used in the English-language references for the article, we should probably use it. On that point, I do not believe that a skewed count of raw hits for "Togliatti" that by a rather questionable margin prevails over the count of "Tolyatti" in the aforementioned "other encyclopedias and reference works" constitutes a "clearly most commonly used name". So, we have several variants to choose from. The "Divided usage" section of WP:EN first warns editors about the risks associated with relying on search engine tests too much, and then advises them to consult reliable works of general reference in English (here goes "general reference" again). But that's not all. Another applicable guideline in this case is WP:NCGN naming conventions for geographic names. It nods back to the COMMONNAME and EN guidelines I've just covered, lists English-language encyclopedias at the very top of the list of sources to check to establish the widely accepted name, notes BGN separately, warns yet again about the search engine test peculiarities, and then, for Russia, describes the naming scheme to use for the toponyms and refers to WP:RUS for further instructions. Now, which specific part of all these guidelines makes you believe that it is OK to run a google books search, pick the variant with the most hits, and declare it a sure winner?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 18:21 (UTC)
The discussion is going in circles. Wikipedia is not about somebody's personal beliefs, it is supposed to be about facts. You made the point that "Tolyatti" is used quite equally (or even prevalent) with/to "Togliatti" which would provide some ground for not using WP:COMMONNAME. Sources in public domain demonstrate the opposite (see RM below). Would you be able to substantiate your findings to turn beliefs into facts?
The discussion is going in circles because you keep ignoring every argument and just keep parroting "prove it prove it prove it" regardless of what I say. The write-up above is not about "personal belief"; it is what the guidelines actually say. It is my responsibility to know what the guidelines say and mean. Plus, anyone can easily verify all those "reference works" the guidelines keep emphasizing—I have already supplied a few and see no reason to keep re-posting them. The guidelines clearly favor the spelling used by the reference materials, then the BGN usage, then anything else. Go ahead and plug either "Togliatti" or "Tolyatti" into the "name" field of this form. Any question as to what BGN prefers? Any doubts about the importance of the BGN conventions in the English language?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 1, 2010; 13:53 (UTC)
BTW, GeoNames prefers "Tol'yatti" (and not "Tolyatti" at all). However, WP:COMMONNAME is not all about what GeoNames prefers. It is focused on common use (all reputable sources may count, including dictionaries, reference books and media sources). It specifically says: "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.". The problem with this discussion is that you keep believing in your top-secret findings which I do find very difficult to verify. — Milenkov
Had you read our guidelines carefully, you would have understood why apostrophes are normally omitted. WP:RUS is a simplified version of BGN/PCGN; the community was well-aware of and OK with that when the guidelines were being adopted. On your second point, way to see the parts you like and ignore the parts you don't! Go-go cherry-picking! Please refer back to my guidelines walkthrough above—that's the big picture. In case you are still not seeing it→[t]his includes usage in the sources used as references for the article→they are included (i.e., not at all ignored) in the overall assessment→but since reference works have higher priority (per our own multiple guidelines)→they override the sources used as references for the article→in no small part because references using the "Tolyatti" spelling can easily be found as well.
Finally, on the "top-secret findings", I am seriously starting to question your good faith here. You obviously did a lot of googling around (for what that's worth)—are you saying you haven't seen any sources which were at odds with your point of view or that every single source you found was dismissible? I find that very hard to believe. Anyone can plug both values into the search engine and see the usage distribution, and anyone who actually cares about the integrity of their research (or at least understood WP:SET) would look at the sources returned, not at the raw number of hits. The tools are all thataway; I see no reason to litter this page with links which anyone can so easily find and assess independently.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 1, 2010; 16:50 (UTC)
Anyway, as a gesture of good faith, I supplied an ample number of "top secret" links in the RM section below. I tried to arrange them so they would nicely balance your findings. You now owe me one hour of life which I have just wasted on demonstrating the obvious.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 1, 2010; 18:56 (UTC)
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: Not moved, per the unassailable reason and logic presented by Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?. Born2cycle (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Tolyatti → Togliatti_(city) — To bring the article's name in line with the official, most commonly used and conventional name (as per dictionaries): Togliatti. This is also aimed to match conventional names of public institutions and companies in the city which deem "Togliatti" as the only proper way to spell the city's name. Tolyatti would be stated as an alternative spelling in the body of the article. User:Milenkov 22:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The original source spelling, Togliatti, seems to be used more widely in English sources than the transliteration. Check the English external links from the article (government, universities, press releases, &c.). — AjaxSmack 03:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Would you support moving Kiev to "Kyiv" for exactly the same reasons? Because in that case it was not enough, and the abundance of the "English external links" in that case is much more pronounced than with Tolyatti/Togliatti.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 28, 2010; 16:11 (UTC)
      • I was treating this sui generis. I'll deal with the Kiev issue if it makes its way to WP:RM. — AjaxSmack 02:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, fair enough. However, I would like to point out that local usage does not trump established language-specific practices when establishing what an article's title should be. That's one tenet on which our guidelines (from WP:NCGN to WP:RUS) are built. Do you believe those guidelines should not matter in this particular case? If so, why? I'm just trying to understand the logic behind your vote. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 29, 2010; 18:04 (UTC)
          • I wasn't applying logic and I wasn't aware that it was required. I agree that, usually, "local usage does not trump established language-specific practices" and I have opposed using it in other cases in the past. However, this city's name has a unusual derivation and English usage of "Togliatti" is very wide. Using the common English form is compatible with both WP:NCGN and WP:RUS. — AjaxSmack 02:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • But how can it be compatible with WP:RUS, when that guideline explicitly recommends another (and also widely used) spelling over this (and cites this very article as an example)? It's not compatible with UCN either, because both spellings are common, and in such cases the UCN goes down the line to WP:NCGN and ultimately to WP:RUS: out of several spellings which can reasonably be claimed as "common", we choose one that follows BGN/PCGN guidelines closer. You don't seem to deny it, yet your choice is still that of a local preference? That's the part I don't understand. If you are just going with a gut feeling, I'd appreciate it if you said so. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 15:02 (UTC)
              • I'm not basing it on a gut feeling but on common English usage à la Moscow, St. Petersburg, or Kronstadt. See the copious citations below as well as the external links of the article for evidence. — AjaxSmack 01:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Did you get a chance to read the guidelines walkthrough in the section above? Application-wise, are there some parts you disagree with? The citations below are being neither contested nor dismissed; what is contested is the unwarranted precedence they are being assigned. Sorry if this seem as too many questions, but I'm only trying to understand the rationale. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 31, 2010; 13:30 (UTC)
  • Oppose for a multitude of reasons. The city does not have a "conventional English name" as defined by our guidelines (WP:RUS). Per our guidelines, a conventional name of a place is the name listed in major English dictionaries and should be preferred over default romanization at all times. "Major English dictionaries" and encyclopedias clearly vary on this point—some, like Britannica and Columbia (available via InfoPlease), list "Tolyatti" as the main spelling, others use "Togliatti", but still mention "Tolyatti" as a possible spelling; major map publishers use "Tolyatti", "Tol'yatti", and (those whose maps don't use BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian) "Toljatti". Those same map publishers clearly indicate "conventional names" next to romanization when a conventional name exists ("Moskva", for example, is followed by "Moscow", and "Sankt Peterburg" by "St. Petersburg"). Per item 2 of the "place names" section of WP:RUS, if different dictionaries list different main variants, use the one that's closest to the default romanization guidelines (by the way, this very clause cites Tolyatti as an example of such application). In this case the closest variant is "Tolyatti". What's more, as far as toponyms go, WP:RUS clearly assigns larger importance to the English-language reference works rather than to local usage, and that's the way it's supposed to be if we want to keep this encyclopedia academic instead of transforming it into a marketing tourist guide.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 28, 2010; 16:11 (UTC)
    • NB. The Britannica states Tolyattigrad[77] or Toliattigrad as the main spelling. Rely on facts, please. The Columbia's statements like "Novy (new) Stavropol" and "Lenin dam at Zhigulyovski" say enough of the quality of this snippet. — Milenkov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.25.211.151 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't rely on one dictionary/reference work for judgement. The whole point of WP:RUS is to consider multiple reference works, and, when they contradict one another (i.e., when no one "conventional English name" can be convincingly established), the one closest to the spelling produced by the industry practices (BGN/PCGN romanization for toponyms) is selected. With this article, we have multiple sources using "Tolyatti" and "Togliatti", and one using "Togliattigrad". Per WP:RUS, "Tolyatti" is closer to the industry standards, hence that's what we use. Current name is in full compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Using a move request to override existing guidelines in favor of local preferences is by no means an academically sound approach.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 29, 2010; 18:04 (UTC)
      • P.S. As for the "quality of the snippet", we, as Wikipedians, don't get to decide on that. These major English-language encyclopedias are considered by our policies and guidelines to be a reliable source, and that is all that matters. You are forgetting that Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability. We can verify Britannica, Columbia, etc. We can verify other sources (which you helpfully supplied; thank you) that use a different spelling. But our guidelines give more weight to the former rather than the latter.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 15:02 (UTC)
  • Comment For those still unsure, here's an analysis of the links Milkenkov found; I copied them here for convenience:
    • Gorbachev's book is a translation, and translators can use whatever spellings they think work best in contest. We don't know what this particular translator's guidelines were and we don't care—we have our own guidelines to follow. Not to mention that it can easily be countered by something like this.
    • Soviet news digests ([78][79][80][81][82]) were translated by the Soviets themselves (not a practice we can adopt), and they were hardly consistent in their choice of spelling: see, for example, [83].
    • The scientific press ([84][85][86][87]) uses both spellings as well: [88], [89], [90], [91]
    • The news media usage is not set in stone either:
      • despite NYT's [92] and [93], they also have [94]
      • BBC's [95]and [96] can be countered by their own [97] and [98]
      • The Economist seems to be consistent with using "Togliatti", kudos to them
      • ditto for The Time ([99] and [100]), although articles from 1968 and 1973 are not what I'd label "current usage"
      • The Financial Times has Togliatti (although I can't read this article as I am not a subscriber, so I'll take it on good faith), but a simple search will show they are all over the board
      • ditto for Forbes: [101] vs. [102]
      • BusinessWeek is no better with [103] vs. [104]
      • The link given for WSJ ([105]) is the only mention of the city I could find using their online search (and the article only mentions it in passing)
      • The Independent ([106]) seems to use "Togliatti" consistently; that's OK
      • but The Guardian ([107]) is another paper which could tighten its guidelines: [108]
    • Geography reference books ([109][110]) use whatever spellings the editors deem to be in line with the overall purpose of the book. It's not at all hard to find books using other spellings, as [111] and [112] would attest.
    • Major dictionaries are also divided: those same Oxford Dictionaries Online and Collins give both spellings (although how exactly can "Tolyatti", in Latin characters, be labeled a "Russian name" is beyond me), and so does American Heritage Dictionary and this Webster. As per WP:RUS, when dictionaries give multiple spellings, the one closest to the default provisions (i.e., BGN/PCGN) is to be selected. Hence, "Tolyatti".
      • by the by, this was not a valid example, as the city is mentioned in relation to the person and has no separate entry of its own
    • UNESCO ([113][114]), WHO ([115]), and World Bank are all international organizations for whom English is just one of the languages they operate in to reach the global audience. Wikipedia, on the other hand, targets specifically Anglophones and favors BGN/PCGN guidelines over other systems. And it's not like we can't find examples of using "Tolyatti" by the international organizations: here's World Bank, for example.
    • The usage by the US Senate can hardly be proved by this—it's only a reference in passing. Note the BGN's purpose is to "promulgate standardization"; that means preventing things like this, this, and this. The Department of State is certainly trying, so occasionally does the House, and the PCGN (UK's counterpart of the US BGN) must be doing something as well, because even the House of Lords gets it right every now and then. Ah, the bureacrats!
    • I am going to ignore the part regarding what the German ("Togliatti", [116]) and Italian speakers (it:Togliatti_(città), [117], [118]), because I can make an equally silly point that the Russian speakers use ru:Тольятти, and we aren't adopting that, are we? This, after all, is the English Wikipedia. Germans, Italians, and Russians have their own languages, their own Wikipedias, and their very own naming guidelines which have no effect whatsoever on the guidelines of ours (works the other way, too). On "Togliattigrad" and "Tolyattigrad", those are not mentioned by the reference sources with the same frequency as "Tolyatti" and "Togliatti" are, so our guidelines allow ignoring them altogether.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 1, 2010; 18:53 (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.

The spelling has to be Togliatti

[edit]

as Thorez has to be Thorez, and not Torez, and Engels has to be Engels and not Enghels. The town is called after the Italian politician Pablo Togliatti, who was not a Russian Italian, but simply Italian. and linked to no other source. In the same order of ideas, when one is reading about Aphina or Afina and Ephiopiya or Efiopiya in Russian, one has to transcript Athens and Ethiopia. Ewan2 (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing "has to be" anything. There's no "one right answer" to these questions. Instead we weigh various factors. The main point is to service the reader. I have limited interest in engaging with editors who have The Answer to questions like this. It might be that, all things considered, using "Togliatti" rather than "Tolyatti" in this article has more upsides than downsides. It might not be. It's something that reasonable people can discuss. Pablo Togliatti's name has little if anything to do with it, IMO. Rolla, Missouri is (indirectly) named after Sir Walter Raleigh, and so what? Everything isn't spelled the same as its source.
It was apparently discussed in 2010 and we decided to stay with Toyatti, but that was a while ago and if you want to try again that'd be perfectly justified, see WP:RM. You might want to read the arguments for "Tolyatti" above first, though, and see if they make any sense to you. They do to me. As a tip, though, "one has to" arguments are not likely to gain much traction. Instead, think about what is best for reader, least likely to be confusing, most likely to match what she has seen in other sources, and so forth. Herostratus (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tolyatti. 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) 21:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Tolyatti. 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) 06:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tolyatti&oldid=1212317486"