Talk:Pavel Cherenkov

Popular culture
The statement that the name of the Star Trek character Pavel Chekov is a reference to Cherenkov seems far-fetched. I would like to see a reference or citation that precedes this addition (26 June 2012). Roderick Harold (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have been unable to find anything more than rumor. A citation is definitely needed. 132.56.180.4 (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Cherenkov Radiation
Not a single mention of it in the whole article?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.20.86 (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Place of Birth
In the Russian Cherenkhov page, it reads 'Novaya Chigla', not 'Nižniaja Chigla'; Novaya is New, Nijhnyaya is Lower. The actual town is Novaya, so I've changed it- its nothing to do with the cyrillic issue.

Large portions of this article appear to be plagarized from http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1958/cerenkov-bio.html.

You beat me to it. Fixed a bunch of matters and came across the plagiarism on the first google search (before looking at talk). Not sure what is done in such matters, I have made a number of changes. After a certain number more changes by me and others, the article will, I imagine, no longer resemble the plagiarised text. Does an article that starts as plagiarism, but no longer resembles that kernel of information and organization, still retain the taint? --Fuhghettaboutit 04:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 00:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Č" not in the English alphabet
I'm removing the following sentence from the trivia:

"Cherenkov" should be used; it is the letter by letter transliteration and "Č" does not exist in the English alphabet.

"Č" should be used, because the Cyrillic character "Ч" is equivalent to "Č" in those Slavic languages that use Roman alphabet (Czech, Slovene, Croatian). Otherwise there arises a confusion between names in those languages that use letter "Č" and names transliterated from Cyrillic. And of course, names that are originally written in Roman script with special letters as "Č, Š, Ž, Đ, Ć, Ř, etc..." should remain the same even in English (just like the names in German, French, Norvegian, and other languages that use characters of Roman script that are not used in English.) NikNovi 15:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Č" should be used, because that's the ISO9 GOST 2002 correct way to transliterate. "Ch" should be used, because that's the ALA-LC and BGN correct way to transliterate. Are we attempting to achieve consistency? Better change Chekov and Chernobyl and Tchaikovsky too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration_of_Russian_into_English


 * I only removed one sentence from the page, I didn't change its title - it still has the anglicised spelling with 'y' and 'ch' in 'Alekseyevich'. Check the history. But, wow, ISO9 is a nice transliteration, I didn't even know it exists. And it is based on the scientific transliteraton! You are right, all the texts originally in Cyrillic should be romanized according to this, regardless of the language. So it should be "Alekseevič", "Čekov", "Čornobil'" (the correct Ukraninian name, and not its Russian variant), and 'Čajkovskij'. It is similar to the transliteration of the devanāgarī script, where also the standard should be used (IAST). NikNovi (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is the first time I've ever seen "Č" used to transliterate a Russian name. I mean, maybe it would be better if we did use this letter consistently, but what's so special about Cherenkov (and specifically his last name) as to warrant exceptional treatment compared to other Russian names? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It should not be exceptional, it should be the default treatment. Even if you transliterate it differently, you would still have to cope with names as Čapek, Švejk, Žižek etc... By using different transliteration you are introducting unneccesary inconsistencies. And as I said above, writing names already in Roman script in any other manner is not acceptable. NikNovi (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have any problem with "Č" - and I fully support using it in Czech names, because that's common practice - and I wouldn't mind if we used it consistently for all Russian names - but as long as we continue to write "Chuikov" and "Chernenko" and "Gorbachov", we should be consistent and write "Cherenkov". (My first impression on seeing this article was, "So Cherenkov was a Czech? I thought he was Russian.") I understand what you're saying, but common practice strongly favors "ch" for Russian. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, what a nice page, all Slavic names are written correctly. I hope it will survive and this usage will spread to other pages as well... :) NikNovi (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This use of Č leaves the reader having to grasp yet another alphabet in order to decipher foreign language naming, an alphabet which is in practice probably only intuitive to those who are already familiar with this diactrict use from their native language (which by the way doesn't even include all Slavic languages using Roman alphabets). For English readers, ISO 9:1995 System B is probably a much better transcription than System A. A Cyryllic version should probably be provided for anyone needing absolute precision. The average English reader who sees Čerenkov will probably read Serenkov (and let's not even mention words with an Ŝ here). So, is there a strong precedent for using System A on this Wikipedia article and a good reason why this should not be changed to System B for the sake of consistency? -- Het (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You have more points to respond to, so:
 * 1- Yes, the English speaking world will have to learn how to pronounce correctly a few more Roman characters (and not yet another alphabet, maybe 5-10 characters) - just as they learned how to pronounce 'ö' in Röntgen or 'ç' in 'François' (or ü, ñ, ø, etc). This is inevitable, and is not connected to Cyrillic script at all.


 * 2- The caron is not just a diacritic. 'C' and 'Č' are entirely different letters, which are not connected to each other at all, just like for instance 'D' and 'H' are different letters. Ommiting the caron which is usual in the English speaking world produces nonsense, or even gives the name another meaning (if you write Žižek as 'Zizek' you get a word meaning 'a little tit' in Slovene ;) ). Caron in this case does not represent an accent, stress, length of something like that. Converting 'č' to 'ch' is also wrong, because such sequence can appear in a name, and it has completely different pronuncitaion (Bedřich Smetana).


 * 3- Even the name written in Cyrillic would not be enough to convey the correct pronunciation, IPA or IPA for English should be used for that. But I don't think pronunciation is of any relevance in this case - if people speaking non-English languages can learn the correct pronunciation of the various names in various languages, including English, so can people speaking English language (if they care).


 * 4- Yes, Polish language is the exception in this usage of letters with carons. But still you write names as they appear in original and I doubt that 'Sienkiewicz' is more understandable to an average speaker of English than 'Čerenkov'. Other languages are more consistent in this manner, especially since the solutions developed for writing of the Czech language spread to all other languages (Slovak, Croatian, Slovene, and both Sorbian languages). And there already exists one-to-one correspondence between Roman letters in Croatian and the Cyrillic letters in Serbian, upon which ISO 9 was also based. NikNovi (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

External link to photo is broken
The link http://www.ras.ru/win/db/show_per.asp?P=.id-52683.ln-ru is broken. There is a photo at http://www.krugosvet.ru/articles/04/1000430/0015522g.htm, but I don't read russian, and so I don't know if the photo can be placed in Wikipedia. Perhaps can be placed as an external link.

--Cybermandrake (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was Moved. No consensus of a compelling reason not to follow general convention for Russian names. DMacks (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Pavel Alekseyevich Cherenkov → Pavel Cherenkov &mdash; by convention, Russian patronimics do not appear in the titles of articles, unless there multiple people sharing the same first name and last name. Goudzovski (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Patronymics should appear in article titles when the subject is commonly known by that name, and only then (see this guideline). In this case, the most easily recognizable name is probably the current one. For example, Britannica, Encarta and Columbia all refer to this person as "Pavel Alekseyevich Cherenkov". Google hits seem to mostly use the patronymic or a variant of it (eg. "Alekseevich"), or alternatively "Pavel A. Cherenkov". Jafeluv (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Per the cited guideline and existing practices.  There is nothing preventing us from creating all sorts of redirects for all various spellings of the patronymic.  Since no single variant predominates anyway, imposing one spelling would be highly arbitrary.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:00, July 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose general policy is to use the most common form of the name. Transliteration is always a pain, but that's a universal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I hope we are not establishing the most common name by only consulting three links in other encyclopedias?  Britannica/Encarta/Columbia also use patronymics in titles of articles for people such as Gagarin, Putin, Yeltsin (quick, before you English speakers click this one, what is Yeltsin's patronymic?).  Now, try Google Books, and it would be apparent that with Cherenkov (and I'll leave the joy of constructing the actual query up to you, as to not be accused of skewing it), the version with patronymic is not as common as this nomination would lead us to believe.  This hardly supports the patronymic version of the name being the "most commonly used" in English, wouldn't you say?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:31, July 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The vast majority of English Wikipedia articles does not use the patronimics in title. Look at Nikolai Gogol, Vladimir Lenin, Lev Landau to name just a few examples. That's why the suggestion to move the article was made -- for consistency reasons! Goudzovski (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per Naming conventions (common names). Subject appears to be more commonly cited in English language sources without the patronimic:
 * {| border="1" style="text-align:center"

! !! Google Web !! News !! Books !! Scholar !! NYT !! Times (London) ! "Pavel Alekseyevich Cherenkov" ! "Pavel Cherenkov" ! "Pavel Cherenkov" -Alekseyevich
 * 4,940
 * 6
 * 83
 * 13
 * 0
 * 0 (unlinkable search)
 * 19,500
 * 17
 * 205
 * 29
 * 3
 * 2 (unlinkable search)
 * 18,000
 * 17
 * 204
 * 29
 * }.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * }.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * }.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Date of Birth
Would it not be useful to show that 15 July is the date under the Julian calendar and that the date of birth should be rendered as 28 July? Chrysippo (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)