This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arkhangelsk article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
What else besides a fishing port is the town of Arkhangelsk? I am very suspicious, as there have been numerous neuclear sub collusions on and around that area, especially between US and Russian subs.
"Can anyone tell me about the lives of the people in the late 1800's? I heard that Archangelsk was a closed city in early 1900's".
Can we get explanation why this city is also reffered to in historical text (16-17th century) as Dünamünde/Dunamunde and Ust-Dvinsk? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
824 google hits], Dunamunde 550 hits, Ust-Dvinsk 379 hits. Other possible German name: Erzengelstadt, but I have not seen this one in my research. For your info, those names came up when I was doing research about Polish-Swedish War, and it took me some time to conclude that they probably refer to Arkhangelsk. It would be much easier if they and their redirects were known to Wiki (and FYI, this is the main reason I support inclusion of other than main names in various articles). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure which map was requested, but I added the map showing where Arkhangelsk is located in Russia. Conscious 11:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
A closer map showing it's relation to the British Isles might be nice to give context to the WWII convoys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.86.153 ( talk) 11:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
this page does not give u the information u need to do a school project on —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.69.26.209 ( talk) 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
Arkhangelsk" does not bring me to this page (instead I got: "Create the page "Arkhangelsk" on this wiki! See also the search results found.. "). Nor does a search of Wik using "Archangel." In fact, I only got here by doing an Internet search! Kdammers ( talk) 20:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Pure nonsence in the early dates of history, drawn in Russian point of viewed by Stalin and his fellowers in Russian history. They cannot even separate Vienajoki and Väinäjoki from each others. A typical missunderstunding of younger Russian researches trying to re-write the history again under the Soviet history writing as ordered by Stalin (Steelman). A great thanks to this young woman in Jaroslavl to create Russian history in these pages, but have you ever thought to go through real history, not only that which the Russian sources (modified by Stalin after his daughter Sveltana´s schooldays) as you were teached in your school days. ( See Arvo Tuominen: Kremlin Kellot). Arvo Tuominen gives an eyewitnesser report what happened there in Kremlin when Stalin ordered to re-write the Russian history teached in schools in Soviet Union. Never heard of these? The real history is told in: Kremlin Kellot (The Clocks of Kremlin) in a book , regarding this, written by by Arvo (Poika) Tuovinen who was in presence of Stalin when he give this oder to a "Minister of Eduacation". Thus please, do not write articles as they should be, without Russian "new order" influence. Sorry to say this but you are a victim of this.
All history written by this young woman is questionable in standard historical forms regarding the material of Russo - Finnish history and history of north western Russia. Too many errors. English pages in Wikipedia are not idented to be a portrage of Russian false propaganda.
JN
Image:Russia500rubles97front.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 10:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure how anyone can conclude that Arkhangelsk is the usual name for this port in English. It is usually called Archangel. Google:
I think that the article should be renamed Archangel, Russia. To name this article Arkhangelsk is like naming Saint Petersburg Sankt-Peterburg -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 22:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
My personal preference has always been for Archangel (just like I am used to Turfan rathern than Turpan, or Muscovy rathern than the " Russian Tsardom (huh?) - however, it is the latter forms which are deemed "current" by Wikipedia), but I am afraid that on Wikipedia I am outnumbered on that count. Although... maybe not always:
Although, of course, there are always false positives for the Archangel form, and very few for Arkhangelsk. Vmenkov ( talk) 11:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S. On the other hand I have to admit that Arkhangelsk has the undeniable advantage of uniqueness, while for Archangel we'll have to disambiguate, probably as "Archangel, Russia" or "Archangel (city)". Vmenkov ( talk) 11:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I am Anglo Russian (with distant realtives in Archanglesk so maybe I am biassed) so perhaps can see more points of view
I almost always see this city named as Archangel. I can see the point in using the Russianized form here (as the last person said, "Archangel" means many other things besides a port city on the White Sea), but I still think it's more often rendered as Archangel. Jsc1973 ( talk) 21:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
What is the reason? I'm thinking I know.-- Pubserv ( talk) 21:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Arkhangelsk →
Archangel, Russia – As
Florian Blaschke noted above, this article is one of many that has fallen prey to the POV that it's somehow wrong or old-fashioned to translate proper names. This city's English name is Archangel, just as Moskva's is Moscow, Wien's is Vienna, and Dùn Èideann's is Edinburgh. This is how it's referred to by the
BBC, the
Guardian, the
Daily Telegraph, and the
New York Times.
Zacwill16 (
talk)
19:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
As I said above, government sources while not always reliable, but they do contain a lot of reliable sources, and for non-political names such as Archangel/Arkhangelsk tend to reflect common usage within their countries:
The US is more balanced but favours Archangel:
With so many results it is worth checking for joint usage, but the results for that are confusing, Arkhangelsk drops by 200, while Archangel goes up by about 500!
These tend to show that among the countries in the Anglosphere government websites tend to favour Archangel on a search that includes "port" to try to remove false positives to birds and churches. -- PBS ( talk) 19:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help) ) --
PBS (
talk)
09:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)If you want to revert to discuss matters, the normal course of events is to revert to the last stable consensus, which I have now done.
Many sources state it is the STS Sedov on the 500 Ruble note [10], [11]. [12] based on this source, Insider has been going around Wikipedia asserting as fact it is the Argentine ship ARA Libertad. In the interview, the interviewer puts the suggestion to the original artist that according to Internet rumours it is the Libertad, the artist states he simply sketched a sailing ship from a photograph and dridicules such suggestion of "secret signs" or gaffes. The Russian bank site simply describes it as a sailing ship [13].
If you want to simply suggest it is a sailing boat, fine, it loses something to my mind but thats better than turning wikipedia into a repository of idle speculation on the Internet. W C M email 21:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved ( non-admin closure). sst✈ (conjugate) 13:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Arkhangelsk →
Archangel, Russia – (There's a summary at the end if you're in a hurry).
The RM from last summer was frankly appalling. I'm proposing that that statements of fact which are plain false and unsupported and unsupportable be pointed out vigorously.
Google Ngrams, which searches for a match for a phrase in a very whole lot of books which Google has digitized is different. Looking there I get... well, first of all, let's start a half-century ago at 1966, if we start before then then Archangel just utterly clobbers Arkhangelsk, and let's be generous and say anything older than a half-century is archaic. So we get:
I used these phrases because the single word "Archangel" brings in far too much noise.
"Archangel" leads the pack so far...but the trend is toward "Arkhangelsk", granted its gonna be a couple-plus decades for Arkhangelsk to catch up... note also that the "City of Arkhangelsk" in The Very Reliable Oxford Britannica Royal King's Map Atlas of Very Important Places counts equally to "City of Archangel" in White Sea Tramp: My Life as a Dock Whore... although we hope these things even out, we're looking a fairly small sample sizes. So the Ngrams aren't decisive... they are very important data points tho. The ball is in the "Arkhangelsk" camp's red zone I'd say... and I haven't seen any strong arguments from them, yet.
Here's the other thing, though. Most names (including names of places) are not translatable. They're just names. (Many have etymologies that with some digging devolve to actual things, common nouns and adjectives, but not immediately, and that's way different.) For instance: the largest city inside the Arctic Circle is Мурманск. This transliterates to, approximately, Murmansk. That's it, you can't go any further, because Murmansk doesn't mean anything. It's just a name.
Some places're different. Archangel's one. It's an English word flat out. I believe that some people's opinion is "We can only transliterate most place names, therefore we must only transliterate all place names". Because... IDK, foolish consistency? Slavish following of pseudo-intellectual posturing by academic geographers? PC gone amok -- "yet another case" of editors pushing the peculiar POV that long-used traditional English exonyms are inherently suspect as being outdated, even perhaps vaguely sinister leftovers of colonialism?
Dunno.
Drive you nuts. People wanting me to transliterate "Центральный округ" as "Tsentralny Okrug" instead of translating it as "Central District", which after all increases information density -- it tells the reader the name of the place as understood by the natives, namely in this case that the district is the center of the city, useful info IMO if you are reading about it!
Do not want.
For this reason I'd like to see a lot better arguments for "Arkhangelsk", otherwise let's move.
(For background, the reason this is a problem is that Russian is a lot more inflected than English, with suffixes that we don't have in English; we'd say "Missouri River" and they'd say "River belongs-to-Missouri" (sort of). That's what the "ьск" in "Архангельск" -- the "sk" in "Arkhangelsk" -- is, sort of (I simplify). It's the "of" in "City of Archangel".)
Yes, there's a counter-argument: "Arkhangelsk" is a closer approximation than "Archangel" of the sounds that escape from the lips of the natives when you point to their city and ask "What's that called"? This is true. However, I don't much care about that; this is the English-language Wikipedia, and IMO it's a lot more useful for the reader to know that the city has the same name as those powerful heavenly creatures. It's increased information density. (Most readers can probably infer "Arkhangelsk" == "Archangel", but 1) some can't, like ESL readers, and 2) it's not our job to make the reader have to infer or dig her way to knowledge when its not necessary.)
OK to summarize. Usually by far the most important factor is preponderance of notable sources. Here's where we are.
Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title.. "Arkhangelsk" does not require disambiguation, Archangel does. No such user ( talk) 13:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
In all fairness, I have one other atlas at hand, it's Barnes & Noble's Geographica and it uses, not Arkhangelsk but rather Arkhangel'sk which is essentially the same (different systems treat "ъ" differently). We can keep looking at these. They matter, some. So far I have
Looking at News ( WP:RM seems to countenance using Google News), I get:
city of Archangel -- 16,500
city of Arkhangelsk -- 3,110 (big win for Archangel)
port of Archangel -- 2,320
port of Arkhangelsk -- 2,480 (statistical tie)
"city of Archangel" (that is, that exact phrase) - 44
"city of Arkhangelsk" (that is, that exact phrase) - 232 (big win for Arkhangelsk, albeit w low data)
BUT
Archangel Russia -- 2,890 Arkhangelsk Russia -- 5,370 but not only that, a lot of the "Archangels" (but not the "Arkhangelsks") here are angels and churches and whatnot, so this could be a bigger "win" for Arkhangelsk than that... we see
while
OTOH, looking at the exact phrase "city of Archangel":
"city of Arkhangelsk" only gets the Washington Times (despite the nice name, it's basically a smallish hack rag): "northern city of Arkhangelsk" before starting to repeat.
Some (most, I guess) of this supports the requested move. Some works against it. It's just data and I'm laying it out. It's not all the data or the end of the data. It's useful data. Herostratus ( talk) 17:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
An editor brought up WP:TITLE, specifically WP:NATURAL which argues the benefit of natural disambiguation: if the article is titled "Arkhangelsk" the reader goes right there, no need for going through the steps Archangel --> Archangel (disambiguation) --> Archangel, Russia.
Yeah but we have redirects. You just have Arkhangelsk as a redirect to Archangel, Russia. People who are inclined to think of the city as "Arkhangelsk" are still taken right there, while people who think of it as "Archangel" will have a better time of it...
Well anyway I guess I know WP:TITLE pretty well, I spend scores of hours parsing both the literal meaning and intended spirit of every word for this close, ~8500 words of close reasoning over the placement of a comma. Drawing on my experience and knowledge of WP:TITLE, what I'd say is this:
The heart of WP:TITLE is the" Five Virtues" of titles:
My opinion -- it's a personal opinion, but it's held strongly and after very much review of the meaning and intent of WP:TITLE -- is that all of the Five Virtues matter, but some matter a bit more. In particular, Naturalness is important, but is not so very important because of the existence of redirects. Here, for instance, we can create a redirect for "Arkhangelsk" which takes the reader searching on that term to "Archangel, Russia" (and, admittedly, vice versa). And futhermore, s
Conciseness – Well... "Arkhangelsk" is shorter. It is more concise, at the cost of precision. (I mean, I came to this page because I was looking for Soviet battleship Arkhangelsk (incidentally, I was unable to find it, but that's really the ship people's
So, precision favors "Archangel, Russia" while conciseness favors "Arkhangelsk", and the others are more or less a draw. So moving forward, if I may quote myself from 2013:
And those are the Two Virtues that really matter. And readers will find the page as easily as before if we use a redirect. So what's really important is to maximize the percentage of readers that can see the title and know what the article is about about without having to actually delve article. (There are various reasons why that's important, but we can all agree on that I think).
There's little question that "Archangel, Russia" does that hella better than "Arkhangelsk" because:
IMO if you gave 100 random readers (so remember, we're including 15-year-olds, and people in Nigeria with limited English, and just generally people who aren't As Smart As You) a slip of paper with "Arkhangelsk" on it, and 100 random readers a slip with "Archangel, Russia" and asked them what the article with that name was probably about, you'd get a better response with the latter. Can't prove this but that's how I read the numbers. Herostratus ( talk) 04:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Arkhangelsk. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Arkhangelsk. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Arkhangelsk. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I wonder where a higher quality version of this image is https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129156/56/PFSIF9170201117.jpg
From Servet-i Funun WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arkhangelsk article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
What else besides a fishing port is the town of Arkhangelsk? I am very suspicious, as there have been numerous neuclear sub collusions on and around that area, especially between US and Russian subs.
"Can anyone tell me about the lives of the people in the late 1800's? I heard that Archangelsk was a closed city in early 1900's".
Can we get explanation why this city is also reffered to in historical text (16-17th century) as Dünamünde/Dunamunde and Ust-Dvinsk? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
824 google hits], Dunamunde 550 hits, Ust-Dvinsk 379 hits. Other possible German name: Erzengelstadt, but I have not seen this one in my research. For your info, those names came up when I was doing research about Polish-Swedish War, and it took me some time to conclude that they probably refer to Arkhangelsk. It would be much easier if they and their redirects were known to Wiki (and FYI, this is the main reason I support inclusion of other than main names in various articles). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure which map was requested, but I added the map showing where Arkhangelsk is located in Russia. Conscious 11:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
A closer map showing it's relation to the British Isles might be nice to give context to the WWII convoys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.86.153 ( talk) 11:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
this page does not give u the information u need to do a school project on —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.69.26.209 ( talk) 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
Arkhangelsk" does not bring me to this page (instead I got: "Create the page "Arkhangelsk" on this wiki! See also the search results found.. "). Nor does a search of Wik using "Archangel." In fact, I only got here by doing an Internet search! Kdammers ( talk) 20:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Pure nonsence in the early dates of history, drawn in Russian point of viewed by Stalin and his fellowers in Russian history. They cannot even separate Vienajoki and Väinäjoki from each others. A typical missunderstunding of younger Russian researches trying to re-write the history again under the Soviet history writing as ordered by Stalin (Steelman). A great thanks to this young woman in Jaroslavl to create Russian history in these pages, but have you ever thought to go through real history, not only that which the Russian sources (modified by Stalin after his daughter Sveltana´s schooldays) as you were teached in your school days. ( See Arvo Tuominen: Kremlin Kellot). Arvo Tuominen gives an eyewitnesser report what happened there in Kremlin when Stalin ordered to re-write the Russian history teached in schools in Soviet Union. Never heard of these? The real history is told in: Kremlin Kellot (The Clocks of Kremlin) in a book , regarding this, written by by Arvo (Poika) Tuovinen who was in presence of Stalin when he give this oder to a "Minister of Eduacation". Thus please, do not write articles as they should be, without Russian "new order" influence. Sorry to say this but you are a victim of this.
All history written by this young woman is questionable in standard historical forms regarding the material of Russo - Finnish history and history of north western Russia. Too many errors. English pages in Wikipedia are not idented to be a portrage of Russian false propaganda.
JN
Image:Russia500rubles97front.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 10:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure how anyone can conclude that Arkhangelsk is the usual name for this port in English. It is usually called Archangel. Google:
I think that the article should be renamed Archangel, Russia. To name this article Arkhangelsk is like naming Saint Petersburg Sankt-Peterburg -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 22:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
My personal preference has always been for Archangel (just like I am used to Turfan rathern than Turpan, or Muscovy rathern than the " Russian Tsardom (huh?) - however, it is the latter forms which are deemed "current" by Wikipedia), but I am afraid that on Wikipedia I am outnumbered on that count. Although... maybe not always:
Although, of course, there are always false positives for the Archangel form, and very few for Arkhangelsk. Vmenkov ( talk) 11:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S. On the other hand I have to admit that Arkhangelsk has the undeniable advantage of uniqueness, while for Archangel we'll have to disambiguate, probably as "Archangel, Russia" or "Archangel (city)". Vmenkov ( talk) 11:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I am Anglo Russian (with distant realtives in Archanglesk so maybe I am biassed) so perhaps can see more points of view
I almost always see this city named as Archangel. I can see the point in using the Russianized form here (as the last person said, "Archangel" means many other things besides a port city on the White Sea), but I still think it's more often rendered as Archangel. Jsc1973 ( talk) 21:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
What is the reason? I'm thinking I know.-- Pubserv ( talk) 21:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Arkhangelsk →
Archangel, Russia – As
Florian Blaschke noted above, this article is one of many that has fallen prey to the POV that it's somehow wrong or old-fashioned to translate proper names. This city's English name is Archangel, just as Moskva's is Moscow, Wien's is Vienna, and Dùn Èideann's is Edinburgh. This is how it's referred to by the
BBC, the
Guardian, the
Daily Telegraph, and the
New York Times.
Zacwill16 (
talk)
19:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
As I said above, government sources while not always reliable, but they do contain a lot of reliable sources, and for non-political names such as Archangel/Arkhangelsk tend to reflect common usage within their countries:
The US is more balanced but favours Archangel:
With so many results it is worth checking for joint usage, but the results for that are confusing, Arkhangelsk drops by 200, while Archangel goes up by about 500!
These tend to show that among the countries in the Anglosphere government websites tend to favour Archangel on a search that includes "port" to try to remove false positives to birds and churches. -- PBS ( talk) 19:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help) ) --
PBS (
talk)
09:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)If you want to revert to discuss matters, the normal course of events is to revert to the last stable consensus, which I have now done.
Many sources state it is the STS Sedov on the 500 Ruble note [10], [11]. [12] based on this source, Insider has been going around Wikipedia asserting as fact it is the Argentine ship ARA Libertad. In the interview, the interviewer puts the suggestion to the original artist that according to Internet rumours it is the Libertad, the artist states he simply sketched a sailing ship from a photograph and dridicules such suggestion of "secret signs" or gaffes. The Russian bank site simply describes it as a sailing ship [13].
If you want to simply suggest it is a sailing boat, fine, it loses something to my mind but thats better than turning wikipedia into a repository of idle speculation on the Internet. W C M email 21:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved ( non-admin closure). sst✈ (conjugate) 13:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Arkhangelsk →
Archangel, Russia – (There's a summary at the end if you're in a hurry).
The RM from last summer was frankly appalling. I'm proposing that that statements of fact which are plain false and unsupported and unsupportable be pointed out vigorously.
Google Ngrams, which searches for a match for a phrase in a very whole lot of books which Google has digitized is different. Looking there I get... well, first of all, let's start a half-century ago at 1966, if we start before then then Archangel just utterly clobbers Arkhangelsk, and let's be generous and say anything older than a half-century is archaic. So we get:
I used these phrases because the single word "Archangel" brings in far too much noise.
"Archangel" leads the pack so far...but the trend is toward "Arkhangelsk", granted its gonna be a couple-plus decades for Arkhangelsk to catch up... note also that the "City of Arkhangelsk" in The Very Reliable Oxford Britannica Royal King's Map Atlas of Very Important Places counts equally to "City of Archangel" in White Sea Tramp: My Life as a Dock Whore... although we hope these things even out, we're looking a fairly small sample sizes. So the Ngrams aren't decisive... they are very important data points tho. The ball is in the "Arkhangelsk" camp's red zone I'd say... and I haven't seen any strong arguments from them, yet.
Here's the other thing, though. Most names (including names of places) are not translatable. They're just names. (Many have etymologies that with some digging devolve to actual things, common nouns and adjectives, but not immediately, and that's way different.) For instance: the largest city inside the Arctic Circle is Мурманск. This transliterates to, approximately, Murmansk. That's it, you can't go any further, because Murmansk doesn't mean anything. It's just a name.
Some places're different. Archangel's one. It's an English word flat out. I believe that some people's opinion is "We can only transliterate most place names, therefore we must only transliterate all place names". Because... IDK, foolish consistency? Slavish following of pseudo-intellectual posturing by academic geographers? PC gone amok -- "yet another case" of editors pushing the peculiar POV that long-used traditional English exonyms are inherently suspect as being outdated, even perhaps vaguely sinister leftovers of colonialism?
Dunno.
Drive you nuts. People wanting me to transliterate "Центральный округ" as "Tsentralny Okrug" instead of translating it as "Central District", which after all increases information density -- it tells the reader the name of the place as understood by the natives, namely in this case that the district is the center of the city, useful info IMO if you are reading about it!
Do not want.
For this reason I'd like to see a lot better arguments for "Arkhangelsk", otherwise let's move.
(For background, the reason this is a problem is that Russian is a lot more inflected than English, with suffixes that we don't have in English; we'd say "Missouri River" and they'd say "River belongs-to-Missouri" (sort of). That's what the "ьск" in "Архангельск" -- the "sk" in "Arkhangelsk" -- is, sort of (I simplify). It's the "of" in "City of Archangel".)
Yes, there's a counter-argument: "Arkhangelsk" is a closer approximation than "Archangel" of the sounds that escape from the lips of the natives when you point to their city and ask "What's that called"? This is true. However, I don't much care about that; this is the English-language Wikipedia, and IMO it's a lot more useful for the reader to know that the city has the same name as those powerful heavenly creatures. It's increased information density. (Most readers can probably infer "Arkhangelsk" == "Archangel", but 1) some can't, like ESL readers, and 2) it's not our job to make the reader have to infer or dig her way to knowledge when its not necessary.)
OK to summarize. Usually by far the most important factor is preponderance of notable sources. Here's where we are.
Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title.. "Arkhangelsk" does not require disambiguation, Archangel does. No such user ( talk) 13:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
In all fairness, I have one other atlas at hand, it's Barnes & Noble's Geographica and it uses, not Arkhangelsk but rather Arkhangel'sk which is essentially the same (different systems treat "ъ" differently). We can keep looking at these. They matter, some. So far I have
Looking at News ( WP:RM seems to countenance using Google News), I get:
city of Archangel -- 16,500
city of Arkhangelsk -- 3,110 (big win for Archangel)
port of Archangel -- 2,320
port of Arkhangelsk -- 2,480 (statistical tie)
"city of Archangel" (that is, that exact phrase) - 44
"city of Arkhangelsk" (that is, that exact phrase) - 232 (big win for Arkhangelsk, albeit w low data)
BUT
Archangel Russia -- 2,890 Arkhangelsk Russia -- 5,370 but not only that, a lot of the "Archangels" (but not the "Arkhangelsks") here are angels and churches and whatnot, so this could be a bigger "win" for Arkhangelsk than that... we see
while
OTOH, looking at the exact phrase "city of Archangel":
"city of Arkhangelsk" only gets the Washington Times (despite the nice name, it's basically a smallish hack rag): "northern city of Arkhangelsk" before starting to repeat.
Some (most, I guess) of this supports the requested move. Some works against it. It's just data and I'm laying it out. It's not all the data or the end of the data. It's useful data. Herostratus ( talk) 17:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
An editor brought up WP:TITLE, specifically WP:NATURAL which argues the benefit of natural disambiguation: if the article is titled "Arkhangelsk" the reader goes right there, no need for going through the steps Archangel --> Archangel (disambiguation) --> Archangel, Russia.
Yeah but we have redirects. You just have Arkhangelsk as a redirect to Archangel, Russia. People who are inclined to think of the city as "Arkhangelsk" are still taken right there, while people who think of it as "Archangel" will have a better time of it...
Well anyway I guess I know WP:TITLE pretty well, I spend scores of hours parsing both the literal meaning and intended spirit of every word for this close, ~8500 words of close reasoning over the placement of a comma. Drawing on my experience and knowledge of WP:TITLE, what I'd say is this:
The heart of WP:TITLE is the" Five Virtues" of titles:
My opinion -- it's a personal opinion, but it's held strongly and after very much review of the meaning and intent of WP:TITLE -- is that all of the Five Virtues matter, but some matter a bit more. In particular, Naturalness is important, but is not so very important because of the existence of redirects. Here, for instance, we can create a redirect for "Arkhangelsk" which takes the reader searching on that term to "Archangel, Russia" (and, admittedly, vice versa). And futhermore, s
Conciseness – Well... "Arkhangelsk" is shorter. It is more concise, at the cost of precision. (I mean, I came to this page because I was looking for Soviet battleship Arkhangelsk (incidentally, I was unable to find it, but that's really the ship people's
So, precision favors "Archangel, Russia" while conciseness favors "Arkhangelsk", and the others are more or less a draw. So moving forward, if I may quote myself from 2013:
And those are the Two Virtues that really matter. And readers will find the page as easily as before if we use a redirect. So what's really important is to maximize the percentage of readers that can see the title and know what the article is about about without having to actually delve article. (There are various reasons why that's important, but we can all agree on that I think).
There's little question that "Archangel, Russia" does that hella better than "Arkhangelsk" because:
IMO if you gave 100 random readers (so remember, we're including 15-year-olds, and people in Nigeria with limited English, and just generally people who aren't As Smart As You) a slip of paper with "Arkhangelsk" on it, and 100 random readers a slip with "Archangel, Russia" and asked them what the article with that name was probably about, you'd get a better response with the latter. Can't prove this but that's how I read the numbers. Herostratus ( talk) 04:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Arkhangelsk. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Arkhangelsk. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Arkhangelsk. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I wonder where a higher quality version of this image is https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129156/56/PFSIF9170201117.jpg
From Servet-i Funun WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)