Hi, I shall be the mediator for you case. It is important that all answers and question on this page are free of hosility so that we can have a rational discussion, although I must say that so far both parties have been good natured. Let me start by saying that I have no knowledge of Russian, and so approach this from a very netural point of view. I have read through all the evidence submitted in the Mediation request and on the basis of that have a few initial questions.
If you could leave your respnses below, and please feel free to leave questions for each other, or for me. If for any other reason you need to contact me, and do not wish to leave a message on Wikipedia then e-mail me, Special:Emailuser/Wisden17, which I check a number of times a day. -- Wisd e n17 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The whole purpose of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) (shortcut WP:CYR) is to establish a new convention of romanizing Russian; one that would hopefully be free of of the current system's deficiencies. So far the progress has been slow and active participants far and few between. Still, there is progress.
My problem (one that I am hoping to resolve with this mediation), however, is in regards to the interim period, when WP:RUS is still in effect, but WP:CYR is still being developed. It is my firm belief that until WP:CYR project reaches consensus all Wikipedians must adhere to current policies (which, in this case, is WP:RUS). Starting making allowances now would lead to nothing good—if everyone starts to apply their own standards to Russian transliteration based on the fact that "it's gonna change anyway" it can introduce a lot of mess if the WP:CYR keeps its slow pace. Furthermore, while there are several critics of the current WP:RUS policy, they all have slightly different view on what should work. Allowing them to use their personal guidelines that work best for them, citing "lack of consensus on current policy" will further deteriorate the Russian romanization practices, which are not in their best condition as is. Lack of consensus on existing policy is not a good enough reason to ignore it. Obviously, when that policy was adopted, consensus existed. Using an analogy, if we get lots of users together who are discontent with existing 3RR policy, it does not matter that they can and are in the process of developing a hypethetical 10RR policy—until that new policy is in effect they still must observe 3RR.
I hope my points are clear enough. I'll be glad to answer any questions as they arise.— Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Although the questions were asked to be treated separately, I'll do them in one. First of all the problem is not on whether or not one system is better The problem is in the way the English readers are presented with articles that have the most simple yet accurate version of the system. ALL of the systems have their flaws that make them unsuitable for WP. The best way is to obviously start from scratch and make a flexible system, where appropriate - borrowing practices from existing systems and where appropriate - making new ones. However this is where wikipedian policy - No orginal research in effect makes it a closed loop. To answer question one - yes, I did more than once suggested for changes and given the reply I got, that is the answer to question two as well.
As for the rest, then one has always remember, more often than not, there are common exceptions for Russian words that will not fit any system, but will be more widespread. In such cases I think some consistency has to exist not for the whole articles, but for those that are split into groups of articles. If anything then with Moscow Metro stations it is fully acceptable to bypass the conventions rules in such a case. In other words, treat translit systems as American and British spellings, if a group of articles has predominately more popular (by more popular I mean Googling) results with one system, then for consistency move them all to that system, which I did and which Ezhiki tried to prevent me from doing.
So in fact we arrive at a contradiction. There is a system which in some cases has and in some cases does not have more popular usage (I'd say about 50:50 to be honest). Trying to augment it and make some concrete changes is received with a boot - No original research. Trying to overstep the system to reflect on more popular usage is also received with a boot. After my brief time on the WP:CYR, I got the impression that the whole programme is nothing more than a hoax...-- Kuban Cossack 18:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Right, let me say that I can see both of your points. On the one hand we have the situation where we have a policy(WP:RUS), albeit not a brilliant one, and a proposal to change it to WP:CYR. Kuban Cossack, you seem to suggest that WP:CYR is of little use, and that a better system would be to treat it as we treat American and English differences in spelling.
So, my question would be: have you made this proposal before, about scrapping WP:CYR (and can we please try not to refer to it as a 'hoax' as statements like that do not help discussions) and instead using a system akin to that with American//English spellings and usages?
I must admit my immediate reaction is that such a scheme would be impractical for several reasons:
If you have not proposed your idea for having one system per page then you ought to and gauge peoples reactions and views to it (as I personally cannot comment on how easy a system such a thing would be to use, as I do not have experience of Russian). What seems to be key is that you get support for any policy idea you have, as otherwise such a policy is worthless: you need people to follow a set policy (you must 'all be singing from the same hymn-sheet').
So I would ultimately suggest, Kuban Cossack, that you formally propose your idea of the system akin to the American/English system, and leave a message regarding your new page on the talk pages of WP:CYR and WP:RUS, and on the Community Portal. This way you can effectively gauge if such a policy would have the support you think it deserves, but ultimately if it doesn't you must stick to the currently agreed policy, and keep lobbying to change it. If you can produce a strong enough argument, and if there is still problems regarding WP:CYR then ultimately more editors may come to share your view. But it seems until that time you must follow the accepted policy.
I would welcome your comments on this advice, and the questions I have posed. -- Wisd e n17 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
[after edit conflict] We discussed this point before as well. Wikipedia:Search engine test describes very well why google tests are not as reliable as people want them to be and why they should be used as a rough approximation only. To save our mediator's time, I'll reiterate the main points:
With all that in mind, having a unified transliteration system does no longer seem all that bad. It is also important to remember that while the article can have only one title, the number of redirects to it is not limited, and more or less common spelling variations which are out of compliance with existing translit policy can still be mentioned in the article body. A combination of redirects and alternate spellings covers the needs of readers very well, and a spelled-out romanization policy equally well covers the needs of the editors. When you title an article, would you rather apply a system that is used by scholars and governments and is common and comprehensible (and I don't mean WP:RUS in its current state), and be done with it, or would you rather prefer to query search engines straight, backwards, and sideways, and then backwards again, then decide which result is "more common" and on what basis, and whether one result is better than other, and then defend your variant from the people who do not agree with your judgement? To me, the answer is obvious. Furthermore, the existing rules are written out in such a way that they only allow for "common Engilsh names" and WP:RUS. If it's not "common", it's romanized, period. Search engine tests for borderline cases are not a part of any of these two policies. Again, a proposal can be made to include them, but it's the same story all over again—if you wish to propose a new rule, by all means do so but please abide by existing rules until yours goes through.
Finally, neither I, nor other editors who support my views on romanization practices, are snobs who "were here first", and hence are always right. Those who were here first created many policies, but none of these policies are set in stone. There is a procedure that can be followed to (try) changing any of Wikipedia's policies. Propose, discuss, review, vote, accept (or decline)—these are five essential steps that should not be skipped. Meanwhile, old policies are upheld. If one has no time or desire or patience to go through these steps, one should be content with what's already there. That's all I am trying to say.— Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The question is not wether to romanise a name, it is how to romanise that name. In almost all circumstances we try to use both. We do not transform Ivan into John (which would be the equivelent name), however in case of Alexander and Aleksandr we translate it. As for Google the case is even if you do run the filters on such non-common words that Ezhiki did, it still shows that Novogireevo outnumbers Novogireyevo. In the end it is about a district (as well as a metro station) in Moscow and hence most of the publications [English!] about that would be written by native Muscovites and Novogireans. That is a solid and undisputable fact. That is what ultimately influences the English languages' use for foreign terminology. That is what got Peking to be dropped in favour of Beijing. The way things currentely stand is that most of the Russians who romanise the Russian language do not apply the certain set of rules that I have pointed out which the current romanisation guideline is trying to enforce. Wikipedia, of all places, has to reflect on this, because I will not expect to see native Anglophones writing about such a far-edged place like Novogireevo.
However in case of such well known places and names like Dostoevsky which places like Amazon.com use. Moreover with Dostoevsky even if give Dostoyevsky, amazon will mirror the result, however if anyone zooms in on the cover of any book (as all are published by western press) that first y miraculously drops from the title. That is, IMHO, says something about which translit rules would the world society use. It is a case when there is a continuous, systematic disregard to the guideline that Ezhiki is trying to enforce. Full stop.
So either we accept that either we need to redesign the translit guideline to fit the needs of the English language and thus remove the no original research barrier. OR we augment how the guideline is applied to wikipedia.
BTW, what is Ezhiki's personal opinion on the matter of using the (-ye) after a vowel? (If anything I might as well start off with convincing my key opponent :)-- Kuban Cossack 14:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
[after an edit conflict, so some points are identical to Wisden's above]
About the "(y)e" after vowel: I honestly don't care; whatever the WP:CYR (or any other alternative policy that may appear in the future) leads to, I'll use. What I do care about is that:
For me personally it is also important that we use a translit system which is documented and is not an empirical approximation of practices outside of Wikipedia (i.e., if we go with BGN/PCGN, then we use "ye", if it's ALA-LC, then we use "e"). This is why I am hesitant to use any simplified and customized systems, because simplification and customization points will always leave door wide open for new disputes. Current WP:RUS is a simplified and customized system already, and look at all the disputes around it. The less wiggle room we leave in the rules, the less time we will spend arguing about the fine points of romanization from the empirical point of view and the more time we'll have left to do actual editing.
But this, of course, is my personal view only. The only way to find out if that's what the community wants/does not want is to let them know. The draft of my proposal is already at WP:CYR and so is yours and Michael's; so let's refine them and put them out for a formal vote. Whatever variant the community accepts (even if it's ugly GOST :)), you can count on me to accept and enforce it from that point onward. As long as it's a communal decision, and not that of a single user, I am going to be fine with it.— Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Well here is where we have our solid disagreement: use a translit system which is documented and is not an empirical approximation of practices outside of Wikipedia. The problem is that even in the way WP:RUS currentely operates, Original Research barrier is already overstepped, like no apostrophes in titles, I am just saying to take it one step further, accounting of the overwhelming popularity of the negligence to rules like ye/e. Ie the same Dostoevsky. All I am trying to say that if a policy is adopted without modifications there should not be a barrier on exceptions like the (ye/e); alternatively a new Wikipedian version for Romanisation of Russian be adopted and drafted by us, wikipedians.
So what to do know, well I would gladly except some of your suggestions and support, given that a garuntee that the Original research boundry be lifted. Until then, I shall try to take a more active part in WP:CYR, but since the project is still undergoing discussion I would like to propose that the conflicted Metro station articles stay as they are (to avoid unecessary extra page moves) until the policy be voted and cemented into Wikipedia. -- Kuban Cossack 15:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I shall be the mediator for you case. It is important that all answers and question on this page are free of hosility so that we can have a rational discussion, although I must say that so far both parties have been good natured. Let me start by saying that I have no knowledge of Russian, and so approach this from a very netural point of view. I have read through all the evidence submitted in the Mediation request and on the basis of that have a few initial questions.
If you could leave your respnses below, and please feel free to leave questions for each other, or for me. If for any other reason you need to contact me, and do not wish to leave a message on Wikipedia then e-mail me, Special:Emailuser/Wisden17, which I check a number of times a day. -- Wisd e n17 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The whole purpose of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) (shortcut WP:CYR) is to establish a new convention of romanizing Russian; one that would hopefully be free of of the current system's deficiencies. So far the progress has been slow and active participants far and few between. Still, there is progress.
My problem (one that I am hoping to resolve with this mediation), however, is in regards to the interim period, when WP:RUS is still in effect, but WP:CYR is still being developed. It is my firm belief that until WP:CYR project reaches consensus all Wikipedians must adhere to current policies (which, in this case, is WP:RUS). Starting making allowances now would lead to nothing good—if everyone starts to apply their own standards to Russian transliteration based on the fact that "it's gonna change anyway" it can introduce a lot of mess if the WP:CYR keeps its slow pace. Furthermore, while there are several critics of the current WP:RUS policy, they all have slightly different view on what should work. Allowing them to use their personal guidelines that work best for them, citing "lack of consensus on current policy" will further deteriorate the Russian romanization practices, which are not in their best condition as is. Lack of consensus on existing policy is not a good enough reason to ignore it. Obviously, when that policy was adopted, consensus existed. Using an analogy, if we get lots of users together who are discontent with existing 3RR policy, it does not matter that they can and are in the process of developing a hypethetical 10RR policy—until that new policy is in effect they still must observe 3RR.
I hope my points are clear enough. I'll be glad to answer any questions as they arise.— Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Although the questions were asked to be treated separately, I'll do them in one. First of all the problem is not on whether or not one system is better The problem is in the way the English readers are presented with articles that have the most simple yet accurate version of the system. ALL of the systems have their flaws that make them unsuitable for WP. The best way is to obviously start from scratch and make a flexible system, where appropriate - borrowing practices from existing systems and where appropriate - making new ones. However this is where wikipedian policy - No orginal research in effect makes it a closed loop. To answer question one - yes, I did more than once suggested for changes and given the reply I got, that is the answer to question two as well.
As for the rest, then one has always remember, more often than not, there are common exceptions for Russian words that will not fit any system, but will be more widespread. In such cases I think some consistency has to exist not for the whole articles, but for those that are split into groups of articles. If anything then with Moscow Metro stations it is fully acceptable to bypass the conventions rules in such a case. In other words, treat translit systems as American and British spellings, if a group of articles has predominately more popular (by more popular I mean Googling) results with one system, then for consistency move them all to that system, which I did and which Ezhiki tried to prevent me from doing.
So in fact we arrive at a contradiction. There is a system which in some cases has and in some cases does not have more popular usage (I'd say about 50:50 to be honest). Trying to augment it and make some concrete changes is received with a boot - No original research. Trying to overstep the system to reflect on more popular usage is also received with a boot. After my brief time on the WP:CYR, I got the impression that the whole programme is nothing more than a hoax...-- Kuban Cossack 18:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Right, let me say that I can see both of your points. On the one hand we have the situation where we have a policy(WP:RUS), albeit not a brilliant one, and a proposal to change it to WP:CYR. Kuban Cossack, you seem to suggest that WP:CYR is of little use, and that a better system would be to treat it as we treat American and English differences in spelling.
So, my question would be: have you made this proposal before, about scrapping WP:CYR (and can we please try not to refer to it as a 'hoax' as statements like that do not help discussions) and instead using a system akin to that with American//English spellings and usages?
I must admit my immediate reaction is that such a scheme would be impractical for several reasons:
If you have not proposed your idea for having one system per page then you ought to and gauge peoples reactions and views to it (as I personally cannot comment on how easy a system such a thing would be to use, as I do not have experience of Russian). What seems to be key is that you get support for any policy idea you have, as otherwise such a policy is worthless: you need people to follow a set policy (you must 'all be singing from the same hymn-sheet').
So I would ultimately suggest, Kuban Cossack, that you formally propose your idea of the system akin to the American/English system, and leave a message regarding your new page on the talk pages of WP:CYR and WP:RUS, and on the Community Portal. This way you can effectively gauge if such a policy would have the support you think it deserves, but ultimately if it doesn't you must stick to the currently agreed policy, and keep lobbying to change it. If you can produce a strong enough argument, and if there is still problems regarding WP:CYR then ultimately more editors may come to share your view. But it seems until that time you must follow the accepted policy.
I would welcome your comments on this advice, and the questions I have posed. -- Wisd e n17 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
[after edit conflict] We discussed this point before as well. Wikipedia:Search engine test describes very well why google tests are not as reliable as people want them to be and why they should be used as a rough approximation only. To save our mediator's time, I'll reiterate the main points:
With all that in mind, having a unified transliteration system does no longer seem all that bad. It is also important to remember that while the article can have only one title, the number of redirects to it is not limited, and more or less common spelling variations which are out of compliance with existing translit policy can still be mentioned in the article body. A combination of redirects and alternate spellings covers the needs of readers very well, and a spelled-out romanization policy equally well covers the needs of the editors. When you title an article, would you rather apply a system that is used by scholars and governments and is common and comprehensible (and I don't mean WP:RUS in its current state), and be done with it, or would you rather prefer to query search engines straight, backwards, and sideways, and then backwards again, then decide which result is "more common" and on what basis, and whether one result is better than other, and then defend your variant from the people who do not agree with your judgement? To me, the answer is obvious. Furthermore, the existing rules are written out in such a way that they only allow for "common Engilsh names" and WP:RUS. If it's not "common", it's romanized, period. Search engine tests for borderline cases are not a part of any of these two policies. Again, a proposal can be made to include them, but it's the same story all over again—if you wish to propose a new rule, by all means do so but please abide by existing rules until yours goes through.
Finally, neither I, nor other editors who support my views on romanization practices, are snobs who "were here first", and hence are always right. Those who were here first created many policies, but none of these policies are set in stone. There is a procedure that can be followed to (try) changing any of Wikipedia's policies. Propose, discuss, review, vote, accept (or decline)—these are five essential steps that should not be skipped. Meanwhile, old policies are upheld. If one has no time or desire or patience to go through these steps, one should be content with what's already there. That's all I am trying to say.— Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 21:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The question is not wether to romanise a name, it is how to romanise that name. In almost all circumstances we try to use both. We do not transform Ivan into John (which would be the equivelent name), however in case of Alexander and Aleksandr we translate it. As for Google the case is even if you do run the filters on such non-common words that Ezhiki did, it still shows that Novogireevo outnumbers Novogireyevo. In the end it is about a district (as well as a metro station) in Moscow and hence most of the publications [English!] about that would be written by native Muscovites and Novogireans. That is a solid and undisputable fact. That is what ultimately influences the English languages' use for foreign terminology. That is what got Peking to be dropped in favour of Beijing. The way things currentely stand is that most of the Russians who romanise the Russian language do not apply the certain set of rules that I have pointed out which the current romanisation guideline is trying to enforce. Wikipedia, of all places, has to reflect on this, because I will not expect to see native Anglophones writing about such a far-edged place like Novogireevo.
However in case of such well known places and names like Dostoevsky which places like Amazon.com use. Moreover with Dostoevsky even if give Dostoyevsky, amazon will mirror the result, however if anyone zooms in on the cover of any book (as all are published by western press) that first y miraculously drops from the title. That is, IMHO, says something about which translit rules would the world society use. It is a case when there is a continuous, systematic disregard to the guideline that Ezhiki is trying to enforce. Full stop.
So either we accept that either we need to redesign the translit guideline to fit the needs of the English language and thus remove the no original research barrier. OR we augment how the guideline is applied to wikipedia.
BTW, what is Ezhiki's personal opinion on the matter of using the (-ye) after a vowel? (If anything I might as well start off with convincing my key opponent :)-- Kuban Cossack 14:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
[after an edit conflict, so some points are identical to Wisden's above]
About the "(y)e" after vowel: I honestly don't care; whatever the WP:CYR (or any other alternative policy that may appear in the future) leads to, I'll use. What I do care about is that:
For me personally it is also important that we use a translit system which is documented and is not an empirical approximation of practices outside of Wikipedia (i.e., if we go with BGN/PCGN, then we use "ye", if it's ALA-LC, then we use "e"). This is why I am hesitant to use any simplified and customized systems, because simplification and customization points will always leave door wide open for new disputes. Current WP:RUS is a simplified and customized system already, and look at all the disputes around it. The less wiggle room we leave in the rules, the less time we will spend arguing about the fine points of romanization from the empirical point of view and the more time we'll have left to do actual editing.
But this, of course, is my personal view only. The only way to find out if that's what the community wants/does not want is to let them know. The draft of my proposal is already at WP:CYR and so is yours and Michael's; so let's refine them and put them out for a formal vote. Whatever variant the community accepts (even if it's ugly GOST :)), you can count on me to accept and enforce it from that point onward. As long as it's a communal decision, and not that of a single user, I am going to be fine with it.— Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Well here is where we have our solid disagreement: use a translit system which is documented and is not an empirical approximation of practices outside of Wikipedia. The problem is that even in the way WP:RUS currentely operates, Original Research barrier is already overstepped, like no apostrophes in titles, I am just saying to take it one step further, accounting of the overwhelming popularity of the negligence to rules like ye/e. Ie the same Dostoevsky. All I am trying to say that if a policy is adopted without modifications there should not be a barrier on exceptions like the (ye/e); alternatively a new Wikipedian version for Romanisation of Russian be adopted and drafted by us, wikipedians.
So what to do know, well I would gladly except some of your suggestions and support, given that a garuntee that the Original research boundry be lifted. Until then, I shall try to take a more active part in WP:CYR, but since the project is still undergoing discussion I would like to propose that the conflicted Metro station articles stay as they are (to avoid unecessary extra page moves) until the policy be voted and cemented into Wikipedia. -- Kuban Cossack 15:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)