Talk:Uručča

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Belarus

	Belarus portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelarusWikipedia:WikiProject BelarusTemplate:WikiProject BelarusBelarus articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Requested move 3 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 16:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uručča → Uruchcha (microdistrict) – Undiscussed move, which disagrees with most English sources (see book search for both terms - Uruchcha vs Uručča). -- Netoholic @ 14:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional search results for comparison - Gale (10 Uruchcha vs 1 Uručča), Google Scholar (9 Uruchcha vs 0 Uručča), Google News (1 each), NOW corpus (0 each), Google Trends uses "Uruchcha (microdistrict)" as the topic (no results for Uručča). -- Netoholic @ 20:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that apparently, the user who made the original move preferred their version over the one I tried to revert to. A discussion is therefore the best way to resolve this issue. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. That's completely abnormal and totally insane situation that instead of any traditional national Belarusian Latin name (which is now an official as well) some people push the Russian-oriented name that is a heritage of Russian colonial system. If some national language has its own Latin alphabet (and Belarusian definitely has it) all national names (maybe exempt some small amount of mostly widespread, but the case of historical English Vilna proves that there are no traditional English names for Belarusian places) for other languages SHOULD BE keeped unchanged according to the national language. That's a normal world practice. And I believe that current situation is a real discrimination of Belarusians here and shame for all participants of English Wikipedia, who support it. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about the above comment is in line with WP:TITLES policy. We are not to intentionally name pages for any particular political goals - we only go by what evidence there is in support of a WP:COMMONNAME in English sources. -- Netoholic @ 20:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think either enough name is used enough in English, so might as well use Belarussian spelling as per WP:ENGLISH.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.