Misplaced Pages

Talk:Maladzyechna: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:28, 15 May 2006 editGhirlandajo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers89,661 editsm →Survey← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:25, 5 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,774,176 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Belarus}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(283 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
==Proposed page move: from Maładečna to Molodechno==
{{WikiProject Belarus|importance=mid}}
'''Explanation:'''
}}
*
{{archives|search=yes}}
* 10X
* 100X the original
*Official city server: http://www.Molodechno.by
*Britannica


==Requested move: Maladzechna==
Thus established English name. I request page move Maładečna to Molodechno.--] ] 23:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop -->
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''


{{{result|The result of the debate was}}} '''none'''
::There is no ''sufficient'' indication that the city has an established name as Molodechno, which is a transliteration from Russian, not Belarussian. As WP Name Convention prescribes, the city name should be transliterated from Belarussian language. The "official city link" listed above is incorrect. ] 23:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
:::That is the official city server. BRITANNICA uses that article. Moreover there is no clause that Lacinka is the official translit system of wiki. So when Monkbel moved the article, that was clearely ].--] ] 00:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
::::First, you tried to move it to '''Maladzechna''', then you requested a move to '''Molodecheno''', now you have switched to '''Molodechno'''. This is an indication that you no have no idea what the "established English name" of the city is. ] 00:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
:::::Maladzechna would have been a revert to an original researched move by a user who wants to use wiki to revive lacinka. Molodecheno was a clear typo for which I apologise and correct. Molodechno is the English name I want to move it to. --] ] 00:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


] → ] – After the last four months of deadlock I would like to finally undue the original partisan move by ] per the consensus agreed in the discussion with Yuri above. ] ] 13:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
===Survey=== ===Survey===
:''Add *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''' followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
*'''Support''' my nomination --] ] 23:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC) *'''Support''' as nom --] ] 13:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' -- ] 23:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC) *'''Oppose'''. Belarusian name should be used. --]<sup>]</sup> 14:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The proposed name "Maladzechna" does not follow the established convension for Belarusian geographic names. --] 16:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
*:Any reasons?--] ] 23:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
*:: '''Read above!''' ] 00:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC) *'''Oppose'''. At least it's in Belarusian, unlike ] (sic). ] 17:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. It should be moved to ''']''', as per ]. ] 05:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''
===Discussion===
# City is not very important and therefore no established english name;
⚫ Add any additional comments
# The official geographical names transliteration system, legalized about 2000, spells it as Maładečna;

# Molodechno is simply wrong since it is transliteration from Russian (usual thing in Soviet Union, dominated by Russian), but it is Belarusian city now, that's why it should be transliterated from Belarusian. --] 05:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The move itself is okay, however, I don't understand the choice of target -- per ] it would be ''']'''. ] 13:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Lachinka is not official spelling in Belarus or elsewhere. Current spelling is just ]. No survey needed to move, I believe. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 06:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
===Vote closed===
I hereby close this vote as per ] because it is definetely clear that it won't fly. While ridding of Lacinka, thus bringing the article in accordance to WP:NC is a good idea, it should indeed by brought to WP:NC properly. A new survey is started below. --] 06:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->

==Requested move (current)==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop -->
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the {{{type|proposal}}}. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

{{{result|The result of the debate was}}} '''move''' to Maladzyechna. ] (]) 21:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

] → ] –-] 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

===Survey===
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
*'''Support''' --] 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support''' --] 06:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support''' --] ] 06:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' -- ] ] 08:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per standard romanization of Cyrillic, and much better established usage ] 10:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''', at last a proper WP:RM procedure started. ''<span style="color:#901;">//</span>'']] 10:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' To be honest, I don't really care to which one of the translit variants it gets moved to as long as the old, archaic and unsuitable lacinka version goes permanentely. --] ] 12:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per discussion above, per ], the only Belarusian editor currently involved, and for the sake of consensus and consistency. --] 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' `'] ] 04:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Support''' --]<sup>]</sup> 07:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


===Discussion=== ===Discussion===
Ok, I think we can happlily conclude this without waiting for 5 days and thereby end this painful and, possibly, last stage. I don't see the need to attract "foreigners" with no clue on the issue. Not that I mind their opinion but for them to understand the problem will take a lot of reading and we should try saving their time. As we have BE, PL, RU, UA users agreeing here, we should just request unprotection and move it. I will do that if no one objects.
⚫ :''Add any additional comments''

As for ''Molodechno'', if someone wants to make a case for that another move based on a common usage, that person would need to do the homework and produce the proof. I won't because I would not assume there is much statistics on this rather obscure for the rest of the world town to prove much English usage. However, this is a separate issue which possibly may not even come up.

So, please voice your objections to the move unrpotection request if there are any. --] 06:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

:Hmm, if you don't like "foreigners" with no clue on the issue", then I think you significantly undervalue the conception of ], which is one of the main conceptions of wikipedia, if not the main one.
:And the most funny thing is that, in fact, you may be one of the foreigners with limited clue on the issue, as you don't know which name is the best for this article, and all you believe is that Latinca is the worst ()
:Finally, the survey may be closed if there is a valid reason to judge that there is a consensus, not out of the worry that foreigners may come and "damage" the consensus. --] 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I see enough evidence for consensus. I am not afraid of "foreigners". I just see the issue is obvious and I don't want to waste their time in reading all this talk pages. I do not insist. Oh, and your accusations are tiresome and will not get responses as I warned you before. --] 21:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
:People are welcome to express their opinions, and people can decide by themselves on how to rationally "waste their time". There is no need to decide on someone's behalf. You were in rush to close the first survey. You opened a new survey, you voted, and now are rushing again to close this one too. Be generous, and be patient. --] 01:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

: I don't see what being or not being a foreigner has to do with issue, anyway. The use of ] in '''en:wiki''' is quite an obvious (and neutral!) solution. The WP is for the readers, after all (ideally :). ] 06:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->

== External links modified ==
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221215122/http://www.polishroots.org/slownik/molodeczno.htm to http://www.polishroots.org/slownik/molodeczno.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080801031854/http://www.history.actmol.by/ to http://www.history.actmol.by/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080801031854/http://www.geography.actmol.by/ to http://www.geography.actmol.by/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080801031854/http://www.transport.actmol.by/ to http://www.transport.actmol.by/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080801031854/http://www.news.actmol.by/ to http://www.news.actmol.by/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 12:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

== Requested move 27 February 2020 ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] 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: '''Page moved'''. <small>(])</small> {{#if:|<small>(])</small>|{{#if:|<small>(])</small>}}}} ] (]) 15:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
----

] → {{no redirect|Maladzyechna}} – no existing letter č in English ] (]) 15:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nomination. The main title header had been unilaterally moved on October 28, 2019 despite the longstanding consensus, existing since the above move request of September 2006, that the English transliteration should be ].&nbsp;—] <small>] • ]</small> 18:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this ] or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''<!-- Template:RM bottom --></div>

Latest revision as of 19:25, 5 February 2024

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBelarus Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Belarus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belarus on Misplaced Pages. 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1

Requested move: Maladzechna

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 none

Maładečna → Maladzechna – After the last four months of deadlock I would like to finally undue the original partisan move by User:Monkbel per the consensus agreed in the discussion with Yuri above. Kuban Cossack 13:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The move itself is okay, however, I don't understand the choice of target -- per BGN/PCGN_romanization_of_Belarusian it would be Maladzyechna. Yury Tarasievich 13:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote closed

I hereby close this vote as per WP:IAR because it is definetely clear that it won't fly. While ridding of Lacinka, thus bringing the article in accordance to WP:NC is a good idea, it should indeed by brought to WP:NC properly. A new survey is started below. --Irpen 06:02, 19 September 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.

Requested move (current)

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 to Maladzyechna. Joelito (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Maładečna → Maladzyechna –-Irpen 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Ok, I think we can happlily conclude this without waiting for 5 days and thereby end this painful and, possibly, last stage. I don't see the need to attract "foreigners" with no clue on the issue. Not that I mind their opinion but for them to understand the problem will take a lot of reading and we should try saving their time. As we have BE, PL, RU, UA users agreeing here, we should just request unprotection and move it. I will do that if no one objects.

As for Molodechno, if someone wants to make a case for that another move based on a common usage, that person would need to do the homework and produce the proof. I won't because I would not assume there is much statistics on this rather obscure for the rest of the world town to prove much English usage. However, this is a separate issue which possibly may not even come up.

So, please voice your objections to the move unrpotection request if there are any. --Irpen 06:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, if you don't like "foreigners" with no clue on the issue", then I think you significantly undervalue the conception of WP:V, which is one of the main conceptions of wikipedia, if not the main one.
And the most funny thing is that, in fact, you may be one of the foreigners with limited clue on the issue, as you don't know which name is the best for this article, and all you believe is that Latinca is the worst ()
Finally, the survey may be closed if there is a valid reason to judge that there is a consensus, not out of the worry that foreigners may come and "damage" the consensus. --KPbIC 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I see enough evidence for consensus. I am not afraid of "foreigners". I just see the issue is obvious and I don't want to waste their time in reading all this talk pages. I do not insist. Oh, and your accusations are tiresome and will not get responses as I warned you before. --Irpen 21:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

People are welcome to express their opinions, and people can decide by themselves on how to rationally "waste their time". There is no need to decide on someone's behalf. You were in rush to close the first survey. You opened a new survey, you voted, and now are rushing again to close this one too. Be generous, and be patient. --KPbIC 01:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what being or not being a foreigner has to do with issue, anyway. The use of BGN/PCGN_romanization_of_Belarusian in en:wiki is quite an obvious (and neutral!) solution. The WP is for the readers, after all (ideally :). Yury Tarasievich 06:49, 22 September 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 5 external links on Maladzyechna. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 February 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: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Maladziečna → Maladzyechna – no existing letter č in English Maximiljan (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2020 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Categories: