Talk:Alexander Zhuravlyov

Orphaned references in Alexander Zhuravlyov
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Alexander Zhuravlyov's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Kharkiv": From War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine:  From Order of battle for the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 January 2023

 * 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: not moved. Consensus in the discussion is that, while the "Zhuravlev" spelling does appear somewhat more often than "Zhuravlyov" does, it is not sufficiently common to override the recommendations in WP:RUS. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Alexander Zhuravlyov → Alexander Zhuravlev – WP:COMMONNAME: the proposed spelling of the last name is used in 60% of news items found. The current spelling of the given name is used in 74% of them.

Google News search results: —Michael Z. 18:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * general "Alexander Zhuravlev" 32
 * general "Alexander Zhuravlyov" 31
 * general "Aleksandr Zhuravlev" 19
 * general "Aleksandr Zhuravlyov" 3
 * Keep at current title, in line with WP:RUS as 'Zhuravlyov' is a more accurate romanization of 'Журавлёв' than 'Zhuravlev'. There is no clear preponderance of news items with an inaccurate transliteration and as such an accurate romanization should be preferred. Kges1901 (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The essay WP:RUS doesn’t say when to use it, but refers to the dormant proposal WP:NCRUS, which starts by referring to the policy COMMONNAME.
 * What you’re arguing for is a precise phonemic transcription of the name’s pronunciation, not an accurate romanization of the written name (for which, refer to the numerous standards described in romanization of Russian. —Michael Z. 03:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, less than 100 mentions in total means there is currently no COMMONname, and we need to use WP:RUS.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Zhuravlev is the most common spelling of the surname in many thousands of sources indexed by Google Books, comprising over 90% of usage. —Michael Z. 03:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose any renaming of obscure Russian-language terms contrary to WP:RUS based on alleged English COMMONNAME. I might support changing the default transliteration of $⟨ё⟩$ to e rather than yo (despite the latter being more phonetically correct), but going piecewise like this is futile (and borders on disruption). It's not as if an English reader will come here an wonder "Valuyki??!! OMG, I've always thought the proper spelling is 'Valuiki'". No such user (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What other way to go is there than piecewise?
 * COMMONNAME dictates common name for each subject. It has already determined, piecewise, that thousands of article titles don’t correspond to WP:RUS, and thousands of others do (but only by coincidence, because the non-guideline essay WP:RUS follows no standard).
 * If we changed WP:RUS, the results Wikipedia-wide would remain piecewise, because the default romanization would remain subordinate to COMMONNAME. —Michael Z. 17:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:TRANSLITERATE: If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on). For lesser known geographical objects or structures with few reliable English sources, follow the translation convention, if any, used for well known objects or structures of the same type. The point is, "Gorbachev" is indeed an English COMMONNAME of the last Soviet leader Mikhail Sergeyevich (Sergeievich? Sergeevich? See what I did here?) and the readers would indeed be astonished to find his article titled "Gorbachov". But transliteration of East Slavic names has been historically haphazard in sources, and for lesser-known ones samples will be all over the place (such as this one). From my perspective, your recent batch of proposed moves mostly consists of renaming for the sake of renaming, and using slightly different transliterations brings very little tangible benefit for readers. There probably are a few worthy of renaming (as I mentioned, fighting for $⟨ё⟩$ is probably a lost cause), but our apparent knee-jerk opposition is not entirely without merit (and has some history in the previous crusades campaigns of yours). No such user (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, okay. But the common spelling of this surname is not all over the place, but consistently over 90% of usage.
 * If you prefer to interpret that differently, then that policy’s advice is still solid. It says to follow a language convention, and “established systematic romanizations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred.” But the essay WP:RUS is not a consensus convention, and it also contradicts WP:MOSAT in the same policy. It should be given little if any weight, in favour of a widely used standard convention.
 * Please don’t start echoing some other editor’s long-running campaign to denigrate my work, or to label and thus denigrate me personally. There is nothing wrong with choosing to improve article titling, and practices and conventions concerning titling. Let’s stick to the subject and not gang up with name-calling, okay? —Michael Z. 16:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)