Talk:Yeysk

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force.

Cities

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

Spelling

"Yeysk" is an uncommon spelling. At the same time, "Yeisk" is generally accepted word. So, I suggest to move article Yeysk to Yeisk. Yeisker (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RUS#Place names, which lists all cases when a spelling different from what WP:RUS produces can be used. Unless you can demonstrate that the "Yeisk" spelling meets the criteria in that section, the article is going to stay here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem! The matter is that the combination of "ей" letters is not stipulated in WP:RUS. But it demands special attention, because in words "ейск" and "ейчане" it pronounces as "е́и" (i.e. "yei"): [йе́иск], [йе́ича́не]. If to follow rules WP:RUS the word "ейчане" is equal "yeychane". I think it's gibberish. The correct spelling is "yeichane". Thus, it is more preferable to use a word "Yeisk". This is my point of view. Yeisker (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian/Harmonization says that "ей" should be transliterated with 'i' (at the end of the words). I think we shoud use this rule in our case too.Yeisker (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "ей" combination is not covered by WP:RUS because no other major system of transliteration/romanization singles it out, hence it is treated as any other combination—letter-by-letter. It does not "demand special attention" for exactly the same reason—no other system of transliteration/romanization pays special attention to it. We are not here to invent special rules for random combinations of letters; we are here to use what's already in use out there. To sacrifice standardization simply because you don't like the way that "ей" is represented in the name of your city would be a bad precedent indeed.

Note that academic English usage does not support the "Yeisk" spelling anyway—both Britannica and Encarta, for example, use the "Yeysk" spelling as primary, and so does my Geographica atlas published by Random House. I hope you are not suggesting that you know how to spell "Ейск" in English better than Anglophones do?

As for the Harmonization link you supplied, that was a proposal which never went out of the development phase, so it is not exactly something we can act on. Most of it is original research anyway; and we've been trying hard to move away from that approach.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I can't know English better than Anglophones. But I know how to pronounce "Ейск" in my native language and also I know that spelling "Yeysk" misleads a lot of people. Unfortunately, many geographic atlases use "Yeysk". You are right. But I think it's an misunderstanding. And I'll try to prove "Yeisk" as the only correct spelling. I have a lot of arguments. For example, the Library of Congress Slavic Transliteration system: MSU Portal. And also: Black Sea Commission, Chamber Of Commerce And Industry of the Russian Federation, and Krasnodar Region, The Embassy of the Russian Federation in the Republic of India, Massachusetts Institute of Technology World List, Traveljournals.Net etc. It's a very interesting and important problem, and I think we should to do all we can to find really right spelling of "Ейск". Yeisker (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found one more important document about the problem: SpellingSociety.org. This list could be used... as a list of words with acceptable alternate spellings, thereby paving the way for progress on the path to more sensible and reliable spellings. These words are all serious spelling. "y" silent with short -e: yeisk. --Yeisker (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this approach is that pretty much any other alternative spelling can be justified this way. One could easily make a case for "Jejsk" or "Eisk" or whatever other spelling is possible by rounding up a bunch of links from the web. Why should we be using "Yeisk" and not, for example, "Eisk", which has a multitude of Google hits and is one of the alternative spellings listed by Britannica? I hope you see my point—if we make an exception for "Yeisk", there would be nothing preventing other editors from coming in tomorrow and starting to push for the "Eisk" spelling. Then you'll find yourself in my present position, except you won't have a comfort of community-accepted guidelines behind your reasonings.

What's more, you seem to be operating under assumption that romanization's purpose is to show the pronunciation of a word as close to the original as possible. However, that's not what romanization does. To show pronunciation, one uses transcription. Transliteration is used for coversion of a word written in one script to another. Romanization, on the other hand, is a combination of these two concepts, and it is primarily used for the purpose of establishing standardized Latin-script spellings of words written in non-Latin scripts (I'm quoting a BGN/PCGN publication on this one). As far as standardization goes, WP:RUS works marvelously. If pronunciation is your concern, I would suggest you add IPA transcription to the lead—that'd be a much better course of action than creating one-time exceptions to otherwise fairly whole standardization system.

"Yeisk" is not the "only correct spelling" as you are claiming. Heck, "Yeysk" is not the only correct spelling, for that matter! Both are correct, along with, for example, "Jejsk" and "Eĭsk". The problem here is not what is "correct", but the context in which a certain system is applied. The LOC system, for example, works very well in the library environment, and GOST is great in official Russian publications in English. For Wikipedia, a slightly modified BGN/PCGN system addresses editors' and readers' needs just fine. Just like using BGN/PCGN in a library environment would produce a very inefficient library, drilling holes in WP:RUS would undermine consistency, standardization, and maintenance efforts, all of which are important aspects of this project. I am sure you can find alternate systems such as the one used by the Spelling Society, but unless they enjoy as wide a use as major romanization/transliteration systems do, and unless they address a full spectrum of concerns important for this project, your chances of passing a proposal to use that alternate romanization system are going to be quite slim.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you very much for serious consideration of the problem. I agree, that there are a lot of variants depending on a situation. And “Jejsk”, for example, is correct according to GOST. But I hope, you understand the GOST's specificity. Maybe “Jejsk” was a good decision for technical documentation or SU official documents. Maybe. But it’s absolutely unacceptable at present time. Ейск is not “derevnya Kukuevo”. Yeisk is the biggest resort city on the Azov shore. “Ейск” is going to be a brand. So, it’s very important to find consensus just now. Let’s try to consider all variants of “Ейск” romanization. “Eisk” could be ideal variant, but unfortunately it means “Эйск” (not “Ейск”). So, we can't use it. “Jejsk” and “Yeysk” are permissible, but really not good variants. The matter is that they means “Ейск” in [йэЙск] articulation. Draw attention to second “й”: nobody in Russia articulates it! It’s unnaturally! In addition, “Jejsk” and “Yeysk” variants mislead a lot of people to [джейск], [еуск], [уеуск] etc. “Yeisk” is unique variant: it combines advantages of “Yeysk” and “Eisk” without any imperfections. “Ye” guarantees clear understanding of first letter - “Е” (not “Э”). So, “Ye” + “eisk” = “Yeisk” is the the only one of its kind. It's acceptable by transcription and the best variant by articulation and understandability. I believe it's more than enough to accept “Yeisk” as consensus between transliteration, understandability and common sense. Finally, I’d like to draw your attention that “Yeisk” is generally accepted by hundreds sites, thousands web-pages, public opinion and official Yeisk authority. Once again I ask to move article Yeysk to Yeisk. We'll make REDIRECT tag from Yeysk to Yeisk page. -- Yeisker (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome, and I think you partially answered your own question when you agreed that GOST, for example, is not the best choice of transliteration system when your primary audience is English-speaking. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we are bound to use a romanization system that is the least alien to Anglophones. We are yet to see a system that's more convenient for this purpose than BGN/PCGN romanization—it is pretty darn close to the original most of the time, it does not leave Anglophones perpetually puzzled as to what in the world something like "Jejskij" is supposed to mean, it does not use diacritics (after a minor modification), and it was developed by Anglophones for Anglophones. Add all these points up, and you'll get WP:RUS! GOST proposal was the first to be shot by Anglophones when it was suggested that the English Wikipedia uses it instead of WP:RUS (and oh, did some people try contesting it!), and diacritics came close second (see this if the history of this problem interests you; it's a good backgrounder albeit a bit on the longish side).

Returning back to "Yeisk", I very well agree that the name contains a combination of letters in an unusual position, yet I refer you back to the standardization argument. "Yeisk" spelling will only be used as a title when it becomes a variant listed as primary by major English dictionaries and atlases. You also mentioned that "Yeisk" is going to become a brand—when (and if!) it becomes a notable brand spelled in English as "Yeisk", I assure you that I'll be the first person to make sure that the article about the brand is located at Yeisk (brand) and not under some other spelling. It is, however, important to remember that the name of a brand and the name of a town are two very different concepts, even if they are ethymologically related and spelled identically in the original language. Note, for example, that the article about the Russian capital is titled Moscow, while the article about a ZX Spectrum clone called "Москва" is located at Moskva (computer). The former is the English name, the latter is the romanization of the Russian name (because no established English name of this computer is available). Even the entities belonging to the same concept category are not created equal—while we have an article about Lake Baikal, the article about the urban-type settlement of Байкал is located at Baykal, Irkutsk Oblast. Again, the former is the English name, the latter has no English name, so romanization is used. Yeysk is no different. It has no established English name (as per the Conventionality criteria set forth in WP:RUS), so the romanized Russian name is used. If you believe that the WP:RUS criteria of conventionality are faulty or incomplete, you need to devise a proposal dealing with those deficiencies and submit it for community review. Just make sure the proposal fixes a problem on a large scale and is not taylored specifically so we could change the spelling of a single article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeysk→Yeisk

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeysk → Yeisk — "Yeisk" is the most common spelling. See Collins English Dictionary, Spelling Society Bulletin, New York Times, Time, Official Yeisk website, Chamber of Commerce and Industry Krasnodar Region, etc. Vermonter (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No peace for the restless, eh? :) "Yeisk" is not "the most common spelling", it's one of the possible common spellings. Both "Yeisk" and "Yeysk" are used in English (see Britannica; Encarta atlas and pretty much any other paper atlas published in English; a bunch of random google books: [1], [2]...). As per WP:RUS, when multiple common spellings exist, the one most close to the default WP:RUS convention is to be used. That one is "Yeysk", which is why the article is located where it is.

This conclusion, by the way, is further confirmed by the very links the nominator supplied. Collins English Dictionary lists both "Yeisk" and "Yeysk" (along with "Eisk"). The Spelling Society Bulletin doesn't even deal with the subject directly but merely illustrates a concept of "y silent" (if they used IPA, should we have moved the article to its IPA transcription?). The NY Times undoubtedly has its own style manual dealing with transliteration matters—just because they used a different romanization system does not automatically mean we should do the same, and even if it does, it should be handled by opening a guideline amendment discussion, not a move of a randomly picked article the nominator is especially partial to. The official website of the town is in Russian—what makes you think that "yeisk" in "adm.yeisk.su" is in English and not just some generic transliteration? The site of the Krasnodar Krai Chamber of Commerce is kind of similar to the NY Times situation—just because they picked one particular romanization system out of many means nothing, we should have and uphold our own rules which work for our purpose (=building and maintaining an encyclopedia), not for someone else's. If that site is to guide our practices, should we start an article about "Крыловский район" at "Kryllovsky district", too?

I said it many times before and I will say it again—in order to maintain an encyclopedia, a set of standards should exist (that, I hope, is not in contention?). Since so many romanization systems exist, it is only possible to agree upon one. In Wikipedia, that one is slightly modified BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian, which, I should note, was developed primarily for geographic names and was a joint effort of the agencies of two major English-speaking countries (the United States and the United Kingdom). So what seems to be the problem?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:31, September 4, 2009 (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.

Map + Infobox

Can we merge the port infobox with the main one, and the map because it seems to show the same thing with the exception of the marker having an anchor? Also anyone know how to add the European Russia map to the drop down list? Abcmaxx (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]