Jump to content

Talk:Ulaanbaatar/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

National University of Mongolia

Minor change: until the late 1990s, what is now known -- in English -- as the "National University of Mongolia" was usually called the "Mongolian State University." I've corrected the title to reflect the more up-to-date and preferred (by the university) term for the school.

population number

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/?id=100365

Is the number of people correct. According to emporis it should be much less. However, according to the wikipedia page about mongolia, over half of the population of the country lives in the capital, so then it should be much more than a million? So is it more or less? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilbu (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It varies through the year, as people gather in the city during winter when there is less work in agriculture. If the sources don't mention which time of year the numbers are from, the numbers may well deviate between different sources. --Eddi (Talk) 20:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I heard that the population was just under a million as of 2006. Because of increased Ubranisation. In the winter this can drop to 600,000 as citizens move out to the warmer parts of the country to escape the cold. I was told this by my Mongolian Guide. User:Segafreak2 (Talk) 00:09, 28 March 2006 (GMT)
Very strange to hear. I was born in and lived for 22 years in Mongolia but I never knew this. The cities are the warmest in winter; nobody wants to go to countryside unless it is necessary. There is no "warmer part" in Mongolia. Temur 07:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A 1984 World Book listed it as 402,000 so it has either exploded in growth or this article is off.

Dear 67.110.221.182! Ulan Bator population was:
  • 1956 118,400
  • 1963 233,700
  • 1969 267,400
  • 1979 402,300 (not in 1984, census was in 1979)
  • 1989 548,400
  • 1992 589,000
  • 1998 663,900
  • 2000 773,600
  • 2003 893,400
  • 2005 965,300
  • 2007 990,000
Yes, it was an explosion. One more reason to use WikiPedia, where you can find up to date informations. Bogomolov.PL 07:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Page needs Updating

Some older info in there, and this is an article on a capital city with a population fast approaching a million. In comparison to other cities this article is shabby and needs to be more informative. I will research and add to it, but I need help too. User:Segafreak2 (Talk) 00:15, 28 March 2006 (GMT)

how is denver, co a sister city?


Photo of the Parliament building ought to be updated because the roof is now completed. If someone has a newer version of the photo of the building, please contribute. 2 pictures on this page (View of UB fomr BG Hotel window and Prl. Building are duplicated at the page for [Mongolia]. Gantuya Eng 26 July 2007

Transliteration Problem

The transliterated name contains a font that at least I do not have. All that is represented is in small rectangles.

L. Greg 03:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Try getting Code 2000 font. —  AjaxSmack  06:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not a solution; articles should be readable by people who have not reconfigured their computers for WP. Septentrionalis 16:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This article contains Khmer text. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Khmer script.
No, it's not a solution but it's something recommended at the technical note over here. (A font install is not exactly a reconfiguration either.) I added a (nominally incorrect) Template:SpecialChars to the article. Maybe a new template like Template:Khmer characters is needed. —  AjaxSmack  06:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was Move Duja► 15:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ulaanbaatar → Ulan Bator – per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). —  AjaxSmack  06:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Wikipedia is not an arm of the USA regime or UN. (also compare East Timor, Czech Republic). —  AjaxSmack  08:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

  • Would anyone be able to explain just how it came to be "Ulan Bator" in English? Just curious... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I hope for an answer too. I would guess that it came about through Russian. Ulan Bator dates from 1924 but the current Mongolian alphabet is only from 1941. Classical Mongolian is Ulaɣan Baɣatar but classical spelling is pretty far off from current pronunciation. So maybe the Russians just approximated it and got Улан-Батор (Ulan Bator) which is still their name for the city. I have an English language atlas here from the early 1940s with "Ulan Bator Khoto" written. (Khoto=hot in modern Mongolian, cf. Hohhot). —  AjaxSmack  08:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Ulaanbaatar sum map

First. Ulaanbaatar sum does not exist. Sums are in aymags only. If we claim aymag the province, a sum will be a county. Ulaanbaatar is not a county (sum) in any province (aymag). Official name of administrative unit for Ulaanbaatar is "Capital City" (Нийслэл in Mongolian). Last years it is discussion about new country administrative division into 4 regions (бусin Mongolian): North, Sout, East, West and Capital Ulaanbaatar. So, Ulaanbaatar is on the highest level. Second. I is not any map at all. Bogomolov.PL 08:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ulaanbaatar is a city ("hot" or "khot" in Mongolian). The subdivisions are called duureg, I think.

Ulaanbaatar administrative unit name is Улсын нийслэл "State Capital" literally. "Хот" means city, like every aymag capital. "Дyyрег" is the Ulaanbaatar administrative subdivisions name (district). All Mongolian sources place duureg on the sum level. Sums subdivisions de nomine are "баг" (bag), former "brigade" (sum in socialist time was a collective or state farm, very often with area of several thosand sq. km, so on sum territory periphery vere bags with 3 - 10 small houses in every, in larger bags vere small schools). Many of bags are in ruins now, the rest are seasonally populated. Only small part of bags are populated, mostly if they are on the larger road so "гуанз" (small restaurant or lodge)and "дэлгyyр" (grocery) are the local bisiness. Tourist business also is possible reason for bag to exist. Bogomolov.PL 16:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Railroad Ulaanbaatar-Kalgan in 1909/ possible confusion with "original" Transsibirian or some other railroad?

Does anyone have a source for this claim? Usually, the date of completion of the Transmongolian railroad is given as 1956, with UB-Jining being the latter of the two halves completed (Naushki-UB was completed in 1949). Authors from the early 1920s like Geleta or, well, Ossendowski do not mention any railroad at all. Probably they would if rails had been built just one or two decades earlier?

Metro

I found a few sites on a metro in UB, and so added their info and made a metro page, but am having doubts that a metro exsists in Ulaanbaatar! Can someone from mongolia confirm to me that there is or isn't a metro in UB? --w2ch00.

There is no Metro in UB. The site you found is quite easy to recognize as a hoax. --Latebird 16:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, thanks. What a strange thing to hoax!!! --w2ch00


Transportation

Last August 2006 bus fares was still 100 tugruk, microbuses - 200. Was price rise? 2 times? And Mongolian currency is tugrug (tugrik - is not Mongolian, but Russian currecy name ). Bogomolov.PL 17:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that bus fares are encyclopedic information. Better to remove them. --Latebird 22:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I used to think that when I was last there (summer, too), normal buses cost 200 T and only Trolleybuses go for 100. But now I think I may not really have used a normal bus back then. Yaan 14:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We usually used taxi. But we never had a free ride! My impression was rather that foreigner prizes are much more normal than free rides. The country has become a market economy, after all :(
But then, at least the metro doesn't charge more just because you don't look like a Mongolian. Yaan 14:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Another thing: What I have heard is that the/some buses in UB were indeed imported from Korea (at least four years ago, some signs still were in Korean), but were donated (financed?) by Japan. The reason is that used buses from inside Japan should, naturally, drive on the left, and so the Japanese had to get the used buses from somewhere else. Yaan 14:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

plural of düüreg

is düüreguud correct, or should it be düüregüüd ?Yaan 19:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the latter (дүүрэгууд). Bu then, a recent discussion here has resulted in the conclusion that we shouldn't use Mongolian plurals at all. I'm not sure if that already counts as a sufficient consensus, but I think it would be a good idea.
Btw: Most of the related information here (especially the table) could be moved to the article Districts of Ulaanbaatar --Latebird 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
There also was an article Düüreg, where I have now merged all relevant information. --Latebird 16:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ulaanbaatar Preference

All of the Mongolians I've met prefer the Ulaanbaatar spelling; I think it's vital that we include that in the article somewhere, but I'm not sure how to reference it. Mind you, I understand why Wikipedia can make a case for Ulan Bator--annoying though it may be to Mongolians (I've been using Ulaanbaatar in all of my articles as well). What do you folks think about a section like this:

When writing the name in of the city in Roman letters, Mongolians definitely prefer Ulaanbaatar. The name is spelled as such throughout the city; it also appears in Mongolian passports and is listed as such at the United Nations' English website. Ulan Bator is seen as a "Russian" name and thus somewhat culturally condescending.

Anyway, I would have been an oppose in the archived debate. Would the U.N. Website be adequate reference?

xhttp://cyberschoolbus.un.org/infonation/index.asp?id=496 Nhrenton 13:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's natural that the Mongolians prefer their own spelling (as do I in personal use, btw.), but that doesn't need to be emphasized in the article. There's a statement similar to your "condescending" in the german language version, but as much as I hate to say it, I have to consider that OR and will probably remove it there. The article here already gives detailled information about the different names and their origins, meanings, and uses, which looks encyclopedically adequate to me. Maybe we could also explain that the Russian Улан-Батор historically precedes the Mongolian Улаанбаатар, because the cyrillic script was only introduced in Mongolia 17 years after the name change --Latebird 15:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Does Polish disagree with English name of his country and prefer more native form Polska instead of Poland? Warszawa instead of Warsaw? Magyarország instead of Hungary? Even if (I think so) name Ulan Bator had come thru Russian mediation - this name really exists in English language. Peking, Calcutta etc - are in English, because there are books (do you want to reprint books?) with this names and there are persons (me, may be I'm not alone) who feel Kolkata etc like renaming. Bogomolov.PL 15:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Peking and Calcutta are two really great examples of links that redirect to their current names. Thanks! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Peking/Beijing and Calcutta/Kolkata reflect situations entirely different to what we're discussing here, so they are not relevant as examples either way. --Latebird 17:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, with UB situation is different - Mongolia (may be I'm in mistake) didn't clame that only Ulaanbaatar is officially acceptable name (not like it was with Beijing and Kolkata). It is normal if toponimes in English and in native language are different. For Italians will be a great surprise how Polish call Italia - Włochy. Bogomolov.PL 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I bow to the majority. Anyway, I think the spelling's in flux, and eventually will become Ulaanbaatar; the trend is toward culturally sensitive Romanization (i.e., using a Romanization convenient for the "non-Raman" people). I just think the historic nomenclature discussion is incomplete without discussion of the increasing use of Ulaanbaatar. Mind you, some poor soul will have to go through every wiki article and alter every ulaanbaatar--and I predict that many a pedantic Mongolian will change it! We English-speakers will be much more tolerant of diversity. Finally, it's not as if Ulan Bator is as firmly ensconced in the lexicon as say, Venice or Peking. btw.: OR?--something with opinion? I'll scour my brain for a safe way to express this.Nhrenton 13:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The trend to using endonyms more often is a consequence of our globalized information infrastructure. As such it is not specific to this example, so it probably doesn't need to be explained here either. OR = Original Research. --Latebird 14:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty silly that the article continues to be under an outdated, incorrect spelling. It's Ulaanbaatar, people. Vidor 22:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's Ulaanbaatar in Mongolian, and Ulan Bator in English. Nothing silly about that at all. --Latebird 21:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It's very silly, and incorrect, since a host of sources can be provided where the city is spelled "Ulaanbaatar" in English as well. The spelling "Ulaanbaatar" is both in common use and correct. The spelling "Ulan Bator" might be in common use, but is definitely wrong. Usually it's best to use the right spelling and not the wrong one. I won't take this discussion further since we're having the same discussion on my talk page, and because I'm not going to pick a big fight by renaming it, but it's very, very odd that this article is named in a manner contrary to actual fact. Vidor 22:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
A commonly used name can never be "contrary to actual fact". It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to tell the rest of the world which name they should use. We just follow common practise, not political correctness. If you can show clear evidence that Ulaanbaatar significantly outnumbers Ulan Bator in recent english language publications, then you're welcome to start another move request (and with such evidence it would have good chances of success). But I suspect that this will still not be the case for several more years. --Latebird 23:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea how one would quantify which spelling is more common in current English usage. And this name is "contrary to actual fact", because, as all of us know, the actual name of the city is "Ulaanbaatar". The name of this article, therefore, is factually incorrect. Current English-language uses of "Ulaanbaatar": an English-language newspaper, the official tourism website, the big hotel, another big hotel, the United States embassy in Ulaanbaatar, the Mongolian embassies in Washington, London, and Ottawa, the Encyclopedia Brittanica, the Wikitravel article, the Wikimedia commons, the World Weather Information Service, the United Nations, Mongolia's mission to the United Nations, and the BBC. Note that many of these are government and official sources and can be considered definitive. When you have two choices for how to spell a location, and one is right and one is wrong, and BOTH can be shown to be in use in English, it's better to use the right one than the wrong one. Vidor 00:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Google searches on English language websites show that "Ulaanbaatar" is more common than "Ulan Bator". Most foreign government sources including the UN use "Ulaanbaatar". The news media does seem to still prefer "Ulan Bator", however. The argument that "Ulan Bator" is English does not really hold since the word "Ulan Bator" is not an English word. Is there any evidence at all that "Ulan Bator" is more common? --Polaron | Talk 00:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The only place I could find in a quick search that had the old spelling was Yahoo. Vidor 05:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's try to clear up some apparent misunderstandings:

  • There is no right or wrong in such a decision, only choice.
  • "Ulan Bator" IS an english word, even if it has its origin elsewhere (like many words in all languages).
  • Websites based in Mongolia (travel businesses etc.) don't define common english use, although they may influence it in the long run. This makes it difficult to come to meaningful conclusions based on Google results.
  • The Mongolian governement has never defined an "official", "definitie", or "correct" english spelling. Because of that, most .gov.mn web sites also use "Ulan Bator" occasionally.
  • Foreign governements and the UN don't define common use, they just implement what they consider to be political correctness. For WP, they are only one voice among many.
  • English language news sources are one of the best indicators of common use. Others are scientific publications, encyclopedias, or maps published in english speaking countries.
  • Personal perference doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is Wikipedia policy (and if you want to change that, this isn't the right place).

The last formal rename request (still listed above) was decided almost unanimously for Ulan Bator. If we want to reverse this decision, then broad consensus based on WP policy and proper process is needed, or it will just keep getting moved back and forth without end. --Latebird 12:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, there is right and wrong. If we were to spell the name of the city Oolanbater, that would be wrong. Secondly, I can think of no more definitive source for correct spellings than official government info. The United States government spells it Ulaanbaatar, the Mongolian government spells it Ulaanbaatar, the British government spells it Ulaanbaatar, and the Peace Corps spells it Ulaanbaatar. The State Department of the United States is more definitive than someone tapping away on a keyboard. "English language news sources are one of the best indicators of common use." I gave three for Ulaanbaatar: the UB Post, the World Weather Service, and the BBC. The Lonely Planet guidebook spells it Ulaanbaatar. This seems to me pretty definitive. But in any case I do not want to make another request only to see it shot down, so I am trying to gage opinion on this topic.Vidor 19:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Further, I understand that we should not be devoted to literal transliteration of every place name. We call the capital of Russia Moscow, even though the Russian is "Москва" and the straight transliteration into the Roman alphabet is "Moskva". Why do we do this? Because nobody in the English-speaking world calls "Москва" Moskva. Everybody calls it "Moscow", so the Wikipedia article calls it "Moscow". The difference is that in the case if Ulaanbaatar, the correct transliteration is used in MANY different sources, as shown above. As a counter-example to the Ulaanbaatar embassy, the Russian embassy in the USA spells their capital "Moscow", the traditional English spelling. In this case, where the straight "Ulaanbaatar" spelling is in frequent use in English in both government and news sources, Wikipedia should cleave to the spelling that after all is more accurate than the traditional. Vidor 01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Just throwing random examples into the ring and unilaterally declaring them "definitive" won't really help much. We need to evaluate their relevance according to established WP policy. As to your "news sources": The UB Post is written by Mongolians in Mongolia. The world weather service is not an editorialized news source. And the BBC uses Ulan Bator five times as often as Ulaanbaatar.

Travel guides like Lonely Planet don't usually reflect common english use, because they need to prepare the tourists for what they'll find within the destination country. Lonely Planet is actually clueless enough to write "Ulaan Baatar" (two words), which is similarly indisputable as your strawman argument "Oolanbater". --Latebird 11:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The United States government, the United Kingdom government, the government of Mongolia, and the United Nations are not "random examples". Not unless we're regarding every example as a random example. Nor do I know why "news sources" is put in quotes, as if the news sources I cited aren't actual news sources. The UB Post is written by Mongolians in Mongolia--in English. In any case, we are going in circles. As far as I'm concerned, this discussion should have two and only two questions. Question #1: What is the most accurate transliteration of "Улаанбаатар"? Answer: "Ulaanbaatar". Question #2: Is this spelling commonly used in English? Answer: Yes. This should be the end of the argument. There is no reason to use the incorrect spelling rather than the correct spelling if we answer questions 1 and 2 in that way.
In any case, you seem to be foursquare for the old spelling and I believe we should use the correct spelling, so we're at an impasse. Hopefully more people will come to this discussion page. Vidor 07:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion, dear Vidor, is based on transliteration idea. Yes, "Ulaanbaatar" is very accurate transliteration. But is "Mongolia" accurate too? You are claming traditional toponimes wrong, only modern transliteration is accurate, isn't it? Zhongguo in Mandarin Chinese is correct, but China - not. You want Germany, Holland, Lithuania etc. renaming? Because your new rules will be universal for English language, if their are rules. So, farewell Warsaw, Prague, Moscow... This traditional names are not correct transliterations.

Yes, transliteration is very useful, every correct WP article has both traditional name (if present), both transliteration (if different). I'm not sure it will be very reasonable to have in WP Beograd instead of Belgrade. Bogomolov.PL 14:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, I discussed that difference. The issue as I see it is, is the accurate transliteration also used in English? No English speakers call China "Zhongguo", no English speakers call Germany "Deutchland", no English speakers call Moscow "Moskva". "Ulaanbaatar", on the other hand, IS in common use in English. I've proved that beyond dispute, I think. And, as I said above, if the best transliteration is also in common use, then that's the standard we should go by. Vidor 21:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ulan Bator is not transliteration from Mongolian. It is accurate transliteration from Russian, where Улан-Батор phonetically correct Mongolian name equivalent. Mongolian cyrillic encodes the same spelling using native rules, different from Russian, but Mongolian cyrillic did not exist when Ulan Bator (name) was created. Ulan Bator precedes Улаанбаатар, so Ulan Bator can not be Улаанбаатар transliteration. This is traditional English name of this city. Even if lot of Mongolians likes Ulaanbaatar (what is very natural, Russians when using latinization in SMS never tape "Moscow", but Moskva). It is educational problem (somebody doesn't know correct English name), or emotional problem (somebody doesn't like foreign names, but likes native). It is possible to find political reasons - Ulan Bator looks like Russian name of Mongolian capital. Civilized society (WP society IS civilized - our discussion is demonstration) never rejects the past. English speaking world never colonize Mongolia, it was no war with Mongolia, so why Anglofones feel need to change the past? Ulan Bator (Prague, Warsaw etc.) is very close past sign, too close to be rejected. Bogomolov.PL 05:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a mongolian and I support Ulan Bator. Temur 07:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

White Space

OK, I'm no expert on the finer points of article editing. Is there any way to adjust the size of those boxes so that there isn't a vast expanse of white space before one gets to the actual text? Vidor 23:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Which box(es) do you mean? For me the table of content is the only one that can cause some white area, and even that only when I set my browser window to full screen size (which on a large monitor is too big anyway). --Latebird 11:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I have a 17-inch (42 cm) monitor window. When I click on the main page, I see the infoboxes on the right, and a vast expanse of white space where text should be. The text of the article starts at a line parallel to the very bottom of the infobox, when it should start closer to the top. Are other people not seeing it this way? Vidor 19:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a reason why it should do that. Sounds like a browser error. --Latebird 09:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


Population number again

Dear Yaan! You posted UB 1,000,000 population information.

First, I'm glad it is not your private opinion, but city officials opinion.

Second, I have some comment.

Last two years population increase was 101 per day (2005) and 95 per day (2006). Officially population at 31 Dec. 2006 was 987,192. If at 11 of April it was 1,000,000 and so it was 12,808 increase in 101 days, what means 127 per day (1/3 more speed growth).

But if we will compare last official number (28 Feb. 2007) 989,900 we will have 46 person per day increase rate in January and February, but if 42 days later was 1,000,000 so it was 10,100 increase in 42 days – 240 per day. This day rate was never noted in UB history, and is 5 times faster then at previous two months period.

Such kind of miracle happens if somebody wants to get a historic number at a historic day (April 11, a boar day of the year of the Boar). Newspapers and Mayor’s office declarations can't change the reality: UB will have 1,000,000 but at the end of this May or later. May be now I can understand why March and April population figures were not published - statistic office stopped publication, it is possible this data were in conflict with Mayor’s declarations.

The best data source are regular statistic publications, not newspapers, I think.

Third, if you change population number, you need change pop. density value. Bogomolov.PL 15:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

UN does not accept Mongolian national statistics and estimates 1,000,000 on future in 2015 [4] Bogomolov.PL 14:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I have replied on my talk page. i was unable to access your UN link, but IMHO the data on UB available in New York might be less reliable than the data available to the UB mayor. But I'll update the pop. number (but keep it rounded to two digits) Yaan 08:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Page name

As a native Mongolian, I want to request moving this page to "Ulaanbaatar", as Ulaanbaatar is the name used in most publications, including the CIA World Factbook, the Embassy of the US in Mongolia, and the United Nations.

There is also the fact that when searched on Google, Ulaanbaatar gives 1,220,000 results, when Ulan Bator gives 737,000 results, meaning that most people prefer the Ulaanbaatar spelling.

Sincerely, --Chinneeb 09:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to change the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), which mandate to use the established English name if one exists. The same discussion has been held several times already ([1], [2]), and the same three example sources have been cited every time. But that doesn't prove that "most people prefer" one or the other. The Google figures are meaningless, because they include results in many other languages than English. In short, as long as you don't provide any new evidence (eg. usage frequencies in printed publications), things will most likely stay the way they are. --Latebird 11:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to have another discussion about the name again? And just one thing, if Ulan Bator really is the preferred name, why is the name still "Ulaanbaatar" on the Mongolia article? ChinneebMy talk 08:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I was the admin who closed that RM, and got dressed down for it, with a good reason (votecounting rather than analysis). The point is that with the time English usage tends to shift from Anglicized to more "native" names (cf. Kolkata, Côte d'Ivoire for one side of the medal, and Turin and Kiev which are perhaps going into that direction but aren't ther yet). Ulaanbataar seems to gradually replacing Ulan Bator, and it can be argued that it's more common now. In any case, since consensus can change, a new requested move is a reasonable thing to do, in my opinion. Duja► 08:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Once there are new arguments, it will be absolutely necessary to have a new discussion. Just repeating the old arguments is unlikely to get you a new consnsus, though. Some articles still use Ulaanbaatar simply because nobody has fixed them yet (I only fix them when I need to edit the respective section for other reasons anyway). --Latebird 17:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

City and Metropolis

City Ulaanbaatar and Niislel (Metropolis) are different entities constitutionally. Niislel consists of 4 cities/towns, 3 of which are administratively treated as districts. Not city Ulaanbaatar, but Niislel is divided into districts. People usually mix up Ulaanbaatar and Niislel. Gantuya eng 15:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Official translation of Mongolian Constitution uses "Capital" not "Metropolis". Constitution clames Capital is divided into düüregs (not cities). So with "Metropolis" it is your private poin of view (POV) which is not provided in WP articles, but in discussion pages only. When we are talking about UB as administrative 1st level division unit we are including Nalaikh, Bagakhangai and Baganuur. The administrative status of them is identical to the rest of düüregs of the UB proper. You can find city proper population data at List of cities in Mongolia. But Nalaikh and Baganuur being cities de facto are not cities de jure. And dear Gantuya eng, I didn't post my düüregs map at UB page I think wright place for it is in düüregs article, but if you are inserting rasters, try put them accurately, please.Bogomolov.PL 16:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
"Niislel" is the Mongolian word for "capital". It does not signify a seperate entity, but just describes the fact that the national governement is located in UB. --Latebird (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

transportation

They may drive like there's no tomorrow, but according to my source (unpublished homework by someone I know, hehe) the minibusses are operating on a sound legal basis, and there is even an official count of them (16something, I think). Also, according to the same source, the socialist-era buses, not trolleybuses, are of Czechoslovak, not Soviet, origin. I guess the latter is subject to confirmation by anyone who currently lives in UB. -- Yaan (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

People love the idea that stuff might be "illegal" in Mongolia. That's also why they still talk about the "black market". despite the official regulation of the Naran Tuul Market. --Latebird (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
They mainly ordered buses from Czechoslovakia. There were a few Soviet buses which were slow, which Mongolia was obliged ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] to buy as she bought combustibles from USSR.
As I understood, the microbuses are allowed to serve in the peripheries of the city. Gantuya eng (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ulaanbaatar/Archive_1&oldid=1198254167"