Talk:Dnipro launch vehicle/Answer to an unrelated question, no value to the rest of discussion
I object to the speedy deletion, but since I created the page, I will not remove the speedy-tl leaving this to a discretion of an admin --Irpen 06:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit]
- The second point, in the discussion on Kiev Oblast despite the fact that the expression "Kyiv Oblast" is around 15 times more wide-spread on the Internet comparing to "Kiev Oblast" you were arguing for the latter. Why did you ignore googling there, and use it as an argument here? --KPbIC 07:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Krys, since I added you to the category of people who habitually question the good faith of their opponents all the time, I reserve the right to ignore your bad faith accusations or to answer them selectively (in full agreement with WP:STALK and WP:DFTT) or, at least, respond at the time of my choosing. I am also amazed with the scrutiny you apply to studying my contributions if you dug out the discussion from so many months ago to accuse me in hypocrisy. The energy you invest into stalking and harassment could be used for content creation but I guess this is not what you want to do. Fine, go stalk me. As I said, I don't mind.
My position is consistent. The common usage in English always takes precedence over the transliteration conventions as per our WP:NC(UE) official policy. The google hit counting is, while a thing to consider, is not at all a sole best way to determine a common usage. If you read my entries at talk:Kiev Oblast, as well as elsewhere, carefully, you would have noted that I argued that the modern common usage is determined mainly by three factors:
- the usage in the major media (not every source indexed at google news qualifies, but only the major press big enough to have a consistent style policy and the editorial staff who go over the journalist's writing to enforce that;
- the modern usage in other encyclopedias (if there is one)
- the number of google hits (if it is statistically significant and the difference is very clear)
Now, let's compare these two cases. In the case of Київська область the "other encyclopedia" solution is clear (see EB article is called Kiev Oblast). The media usage was also analyzed. There are two ways to view it. One is that KO is the entity that should be treated fully on its own, that is it has the English name of Kyivska Oblast and in this case, it should be called by the national name Kyivska Oblast. There is exactly zero media usage for such a name simply because using the borrowed English word Oblast we adopted in WP is not typical for other sources. I still did not oppose the Kyivska Oblast option while I noted that it would require moving all other oblasts from their noun to the adjective forms. However, the situation is different. Kyivska Oblast is the administrative subdivision, which we call at WP oblast and some media calls it province and some calls it region, named to its capital. The usage in media for Kiev province and Kiev region is overwhelming as I analyzed at the article's talk and I made sure that by province and region they mean not some loosely defined area but the very thing we are talking about when I was checking the newspaper articles. As such and also, due to the capital's name in English being overwhelmingly Kiev, for now, I argued for the anglicized name of the WP article. Also note, that MichaelZ and I where in full agreement on that.
Now, to the DLV. Note that I raised the question exclusively in connection with the media usage, particularly when I read the article in Defense News, a leading newspaper in the industry. Also note, the usage in the media in connection with the recent catastrophe, also widely covered. Only after that I went ahead and checked the google counts.
Generally, answering your bad faith accusation is exhausting and I will only answer them when I want to. With your stalking and ABF reputation, no one will ever blame me for that. --Irpen 03:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Irpen, you keep accusing me of stalking without much of indication that your pattern of activity is not significantly different from mine, so to speak. You accusations are rather based on your believe of being stalked. But you are wrong in that, and you are wrong in assuming that I’ve been looking into your year old contributions. I did recently look over a discussion on Kyiv Oblast and I did notice your active involvement. But I was driven into that article, because now we are using noun form for Oblast names, like Lviv Oblast and adjective for Raion names, like Reniyskyi Raion. This seems to be inconsistent, and I was looking over previous discussions about that. Actually, above you mentioned that your position is consistent, and you did not oppose Kyivska Oblast. In the same time, in the discussion on Talk:Lysianskyi Raion you suggested to use noun form, instead of adjective form for Raions, but you agreed for noun for for the sake of consensus. So, at the end, your position on noun vs. adjective form is not clear. And, again, it’s you who participate (or should I say stalk?) in all discussions on Ukrainian articles, and it’s me who just observes the result, or may be a little more. Going back to Kyiv Oblast, in choosing between two forms "Kyiv Oblast" and "Kiev Oblast" you advocated for the one which is derived from the current Oblast center. Fine; there is some logic. But, in the same time, if Lviv Oblast is derived from Lviv, which has Polish name, then the similar logic should advocate for the alternative name, Lwow Oblast. But you don’t like, and here you apply another logic, which you call "modern usage". Going back, if that logic were applied to "Kyiv Oblast" which is 70 year old, it could produce quite different result than using 1500 old city name plus Oblast part. And the same with Dnipro launch vehicle. Here, you don’t want to use Ukrainian name of the river, you don’t want to use international name of the river, you want to use Russian name, and you are looking for the third set of arguments to defend that. Both name are established for the launch vehicle (you read one article, I gave you the link to the other), so here at the end you are referencing to the Google test. This all looks too inconsistent to me. And I have to point out that, so the others can see and decide by themselves.
- Speaking on bad faith and good faith, you are taking a position that I’m acting in bad faith with respect to you. If this is your position, then what do you expect me to assume about you? While I’m still assuming your good faith, some actions like removal of a template, which you have not questioned is really hard to understand. You did nothing to prevent the vandal, and to put him back on track into the normal way of resolving the dispute. You are indirectly accepting his actions, and you think I am the one acting in bad faith? Well, wrong.
- Again, on stalking. I do have good googling skills, people commonly ask me to find some info in internet, but I’m not really stalking neither you nor Kuban or somebody else. You brought that Maladzyechna issue, which is half year old, or so. But it is you who like to remind that article moves should be discussed first. And that was all I was pointing out to Kuban. At that time, it was you who was stalking my article moves, but somehow you were ok with article moves by others, including Kuban's moves. So, before claiming my stalking on Maladzyechna, you should probably recall your behavior of that time.
- Also, it seems like you are looking for an universal defense against arguments of opponents. Against AndyiK you were using his RfC. Against AlexPU you are using his incility. Against Ukrained incivility as well. Against me you were initially claiming the lack of contributions. Now, you switched to the stalking accusations. Basically, these are all personal attacks, in the situation you are lacking any other arguments. I’m not assuming bad faith, but please avoid such kind of unconstructive attacks.
- That’s about what I can tell. --KPbIC 05:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the DLV but fine, I will respond this time as it may be useful for the onlookers who may have no clue (since you usually do not provide diffs)
Re noun vs adjective forms: I did not say that I supported the adjective forms. I supported the noun forms both for raions and for oblasts. The majority happened to agree with me on oblasts and disagree with me on raions. I did not care enough to spend time on the discussions of the latter even after I saw that more editors wanted the adjectives and that was becoming a convention for Raions. Despite I supported the noun forms, I would have lived with the adjective forms for Oblast too, as I do with the raions. Similarly, I would live with the adjective forms for Oblast but I don't have to since the community's opinion on those did not differ from mine. All I said was that Kyivska Oblast would have been a fine name, if we switched to the adjective forms but we should first agree on the overall switching of 20+ oblast names and after that we rename the article to the Kyivska Oblast. This name is not the same as Kyiv Oblast rename proposal which was discussed and rejected at that time. While Kiev Oblast is the anglicized name in accordance with Britannica and our naming conventions, Kyivska Oblast would have been a transliterated name, under the hypothetical convention that would have called for using the adjectives rather than nouns. Both are fine with me, within their respective convention, but Kyiv Oblast is in fine with neither.
Now, to Lwow Oblast, I just don't get your point. Why is this relevant and how is this possible? Are you talking about the hypothetical renaming the article in English WP to Lwow Oblast? The reason why it won't fly is that according to current convention the articles are named to the Oblast centers and the modern name of the city in English is Lviv, as confirmed by the media usage (same as Kiev for the capital of UA).
For the launch vehicle, I first of all look for the name of the vehicle used in English and it is Dnepr. It is used in combination with "rocket", "missile", "vehicle" similarly to Kiev being used with "Oblast", "Province" and "Region". I don't care that Dnepr is Russian, and not Belarusian or Ukrainian if it is the English usage name. I looked first of all for the media usage, and only after that I checked google and other editors seemed to have agreed that the in English usage the missile's name is Dnepr. For the river, the English name is Dnieper, for the vehicle, the English media uses the Russian name for whatever reasons. Wikipedia should reflect just that. For Kiev Oblast I was not separately looking for comparison of Kiev vs Kyiv and pasted the result together with the Oblast name. I was looking for a combination of the center with the word that designates Oblast. In WP it is Oblast, in some media it is province and in other media it is region (where region denoted the administrative subdivision, I made sure to ignore articles where region denotes simply the vicinity). It is very important, that Britannica uses Kiev Oblast too. Neither of this arguments decide the whole case, but their combination does.
Speaking of good faith, I really don't care about the position you take towards me. It is somewhat annoying to be accused all the time, but once you blamed me unjustly several times, I will not be loosing sleep over each next of your accusation. That frivolous RfC showed much about my faith (by the user responses) and it will show more once I manage to get to my response, which I promise will be big.
As for the template, I stated clearly at its talk that it is going to be a flame-bait. I said clearly that I know of no solution to the problems, of which areas should be included, and the only thing I was sure about was that the names there should be anglicized. My only two edits to the template were insisting on the Englishness of the names and reverting you when you were adding the regions currently disputed at talk, especially since you were using the inflammatory and meaningless edit summary, which you made a new annoying habbit. Kuban region did not seem right to me, especially since the tl's name was questionable. If the RO-tl has the questionable name, no need for us to respond the same way. The right way is to discuss the RO-tl and name our tl less controversially (like etnocultural regions or smth, as proposed at talk).
Maladzechna is now locked at the nonsense name oppose by everyone thanks only to your stalking reverts, face it. (Oh, I forgot Halibutt). You even came to this article on your stalking spree. Good, stalk me further. I feel bad that you don't have anything better to do with your time, but I am pleased to have my contributions so thoroughly scrutinized especially by those who have good googling skills.
"Basically", nothing in what I said is a personal attack. Reread WP:PA if you have to. I am not using any "tactic" and, note, that I treat each of your edits on its own merit and separately from whatever you've done in the past under all the user names (I might not know some of them, though). --Irpen 07:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)