User talk:FBryz

Chernobyl NPP
Hello,

These are the official names of the ChNPP, past and present:

Current: SSP (Special State Enterprise) "Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant"

Soviet Era: Chornobyl's'ka atomna elektrostantsiya imeni V.I. Lenina Chernobyl Atomic Energy Station of (literally: in the name) of V.I. Lenin.

Omitting the 'Chernobylskaya' and including the name 'Vladimir' or even putting 'Lenin' at the start of the name is *entirely incorrect.* It doesn't matter whether you are envisioning official or unofficial usage. No Soviet person in the history of the universe has ever called the plant 'the Lenin plant.' The citation you added doesn't use this name either. Did you know that the Leningrad NPP is also 'imeni V.I. Lenina'? Therefore if you were talking about the Lenin power plant, no one would know if you meant Leningrad or Chernobyl or possible a host of dams and coal plants as well. Sredmash (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes you are right that is my mistake, but why on Earth would you opt to remove the name entirely because it was missing a couple of words? It doesn't matter if it is no longer in use, it should then be qualified with a 'formerly' or the such. It was the name, so why is there so much hostility towards it. Also, I did already remove the 'Vladimir' when I realised it was incorrect. And yes, I am aware this is not the only power plant named after Lenin, the Soviets rather obsessively named stuff after that man. Half the dams in the country were originally named after him and Stalin. Which is why no one would refer to Chernobyl as such if they lived in St Petersburg, but they might if they lived in Kyiv, for example. But this is all irrelevant, it doesn't matter who used the name, it just was the name.
 * So this begs the question, why is there no mention on the page of either the current official name or the historic one? But then I find you removed all these mentions some months ago? Why? These are accurate historic details, if the wording is not perfect, correct it, don't purge it from existence. And why are you so obsessed with the HBO series, that is not hugely accurate but does correctly name the plant as officials would refer to it in official settings. The name is nothing to do with the series anyway, it is just the name used at the time. And it is still mentioned in the computer section but nowhere else, leaving the uninformed reader likely slight confused, as was I when I found the page suddenly lacking information it used to have.
 * If there is no reason not to include the current and historical official names then I will readd them once again, corrected in the manner you point out, so thank you for that. If there is a good reason, please share, I truly do not understand this apparently awkward behaviour on something so randomly specific. FBryz (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you do not wish to dispute this, then I would like to readd the official title in addition to the modern title you suggested here. I can't see how you could have a problem, so will go ahead if you do not wish to respond. FBryz (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't see your responses here earlier. I don't recall removing any references to "имени Ленина" from elsewhere in the article where they would be more appropriate. And just added a note about the former name in the Construction section. By the way you might be interested to learn that the actual Russian-language article for ChNPP does not contain a single reference to the former 'of V. I. Lenin' name.Sredmash (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But none of what you are saying makes it less true. That was the official name. You can't just ignore me for a month and then immediately revert my edits after I have presented good reason for this to be included, including more than adequate citation. The fact that a smaller wiki doesn't include a piece of information is the single weakest defence I have heard in my life. I don't understand why you hate this term so much, but following the standard of other translations as I evidenced in my edit summary, it is normal to simply call it the V I Lenin Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. You are calling my translation bad when you provided the "Chernobyl Atomic Energy Station in the name of V I Lenin" which is just absurdly overly literal. Your own example of the Moscow metro even proves this, as the relevant section of the name is literally translated as the "V I Lenin Metro". This proves my point, even though it is not a fair comparison, as that name is so absurdly long and has active controversy around it. What were you even trying to say, that it isn't mentioned in the first paragraph, and therefore nor should it on Chernobyl? 'Chernobylskaya' may take precedence over 'imeni Lenina' in Russian, but not in English. Maybe English is not a first language to you, but that is just not how things are ordered in English in this context. Furthermore, every example backs me up, you haven't provided a single example supporting your argument that Lenin should either be ignored or placed at the back.
 * The plant's former name has no logic being only in the construction section, it was the officially used name during soviet years, the whole time, including during the accident, even if not exclusively used. If you really don't want it in the first paragraph, then write a section similar to that of the Moscow Metro, don't just remove or at it to a completely random section.
 * Again, if you are not going to respond or come to a reasonable agreement on this verified historical fact, then I will reinstate my edit. You are being wholly unreasonable and demonstrating a total lack of understanding of the subject matter by saying things like "putting 'Lenin' at the start of the name is entirely incorrect" even though we have both found examples where it is written in that order in other similar translations. And if you don't recall removing the other mentions, then go and find it. If you ignore me for a month, don't expect my memory to be perfect. I will readd my edits. Do not remove them again unless you can give an actual reason why they shouldn't be removed, giving me adequate time to respond (I did wait nearly a month for you). I don't want to have to escalate this because it is such a stupid point of contention, and I know it will be a pointless pain. FBryz (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You just keep doubling down on. I can hardly believe it. NO ONE CALLS IT THE LENIN METRO. IT IS CALLED THE MOSCOW METRO. Omitting the word 'Chernobyl' is such a ridiculous mistranslation that I don't even know where to begin. I refuse to discuss this any longer with an ignoramus who doesn't even speak the language. You are NOT qualified to translate Russian. Stop trying.Sredmash (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting anyone calls it either the Lenin Metro or Lenin Power Plant. In fact, it is the page of the Moscow Metro that suggests this by saying it was "usually shortened to V.I. Lenin Metro". Although, maybe this will now shortly disappear... Either way, in both cases the official names include Lenin before the name of the thing. I don't want the page renamed to Lenin Power Plant, I just want a little mention to the former name in the usual location to help all the people who are confused about the name. I literally don't understand why you are fighting this, is it because of this HBO stuff you mention in your other edit summaries? Just because HBO used their name in the programme doesn't make it untrue. But regardless of how you feel the full name should be included, it is a matter of historical fact. Why are you censoring the history? I understand if you are really anti-Lenin, but it's just a name. I have put a lot of time into trying to help you see my perspective, and it is just disappointing to be met with an aggressive and wilfully ignorant response. I don't even feel you have read what I have written based on your comment that "omitting the word 'Chernobyl' is such a ridiculous mistranslation" when I am not suggesting omitting the word Chernobyl. You also suggest I should not be attempting translation when you have told me that "putting 'Lenin' at the start of the name is entirely incorrect" despite that being a demonstrably common practice with the term 'имени Ленина'. I have proved this to you. It doesn't matter who knows Russian better when the translation is already there. Can you please just discuss this reasonably instead of angrily ignoring my points? I will be seeking higher arbitration if we cannot discuss this sensibly. FBryz (talk) 08:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are some more excerpts detailing the translations on the Moscow Metro's page, all dealing with the phrase "имени", and all translating it to be the [name] [thing], not the [thing] of [name], because that is not typically done in English.
 * The full legal name of the metro is "Moscow Order of Lenin and Order of the Red Banner of Labor V.I. Lenin Metro" (Московский ордена Ленина и ордена Трудового Красного Знамени метрополитен имени В.И. Ленина) since 1955. This is usually shortened to V.I. Lenin Metro (Метрополитен им. В.И. Ленина).
 * The first official name of the metro was L. M. Kaganovich Metro (Метрополитен им. Л.М. Кагановича) after Lazar Kaganovich.
 * It was officially renamed "Moscow Order of Lenin L. M. Kaganovich Metro" (Московский ордена Ленина Метрополитен им. Л. М. Кагановича) in 1947.
 * And for another completely independent and simple translation, I will provide the former Проспект имени Сталина, known in English as Stalin Avenue. As you can see, the name is placed first in English, and this is done literally everywhere. You refuse to provide one example on the contrary. Can we not agree this? FBryz (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a whole lot of words to obscure the fact that none of those examples support the "V.I. Lenin Chernobyl" translation. Your Prospekt imeni Stalina and Biblioteka imeni Lenina examples are wholly irrelevant, since the surname is the *only* proper noun involved. It is not hard to see why 'Moscow' was omitted on some signs, given that that part went without saying. Everyone knew they were in Moscow, and there was only one metro named for Stalin. But Chernobyl was not the only power plant named for Lenin, nor was the small town of Chernobyl well-known. For your part you are treating the unwarranted change in word order as the default option, when in reality the burden of proof lies on you that the word order should change. Chernobyl comes first because it is more important. Dedications are an afterthought. Anyways, we are not going to agree on the translation, and the article now mentions that the plant was named for Lenin, so I don't see how the current revision fails to reflect your point of view.Sredmash (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have some specific opinion on the word order, I just want it to be the most accurate translation, but more importantly actually mentioned. If you want to put Lenin after Chernobyl, then do so, it is putting it at the end of the name that I especially don't understand, as it has no precedence elsewhere, and just look and sounds ugly. I personally believe the done thing in English would be to put the honorary name before the location, because it is less important, and that would be the typical order I'd use in English. I will try to find other old sources that translate the name to English, though it is tricky as it is rare outside of soviet records to take the honorary titles particularly seriously.
 * I don't disagree with what you say about the Moscow Metro, the evidence I provided above was only to contradict your earlier statements suggesting that "no one calls it the Lenin Metro". Again, I don't think anything should be called the Lenin thing, I just want the official Soviet names recorded as very few other reliable information repositories accurately describe them. Most even call Chernobyl the Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, which even lead to my initial confusion before I found the more precise older sources.
 * The way the article fails in my mind is to relegate the official soviet name to some random part of the article, and not in the introduction, where it makes sense to include it. Like I said before, the primary reason I want this to be added is to help people who come to the article confused about the lack of the Lenin name and then are shouted at to go away because they didn't quite get it right. Hiding the name deep in the page will just result in people continuing to be confused. Like I said, if you really don't think it belongs in the intro, then why not add a short section on the name similar to the Russian State Library or the Moscow Metro. It just doesn't help anyone if you delete everything I do rather than rewriting it in a manner you are satisfied with. And why remove the sources, I added them because I know there will be other people that try to remove this fact based on the page's history. FBryz (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are some direct translations of the power plant's original name from what I believe are reliable sources, most created before the HBO series:
 * https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/vp-bryukhanov-director-chernobyl-npp-accident-v-i-lenin-chernobyl-npp
 * https://guides.loc.gov/chernobyl-nuclear-accident
 * https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-04-14-mn-58398-story.html (this one states that the station still bears the name, but that is because it was published in the 90s)
 * https://pbsinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Chernobyl-New-Evidence.pdf
 * https://newrepublic.com/article/85458/chernobyl-soviet-union-bazell
 * And some books:
 * https://www.martinus.sk/?uItem=127593
 * https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Ablaze/aXLyAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=v+i+%22Lenin%22+Chernobyl+Nuclear+Power+Plant&dq=v+i+%22Lenin%22+Chernobyl+Nuclear+Power+Plant&printsec=frontcover
 * https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Reauthorization_of_the_Nuclear_Regulator/AHx5ZeqlY_MC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=v+i+%22Lenin%22+Chernobyl+Nuclear+Power+Plant&pg=PA423&printsec=frontcover
 * https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Collapse_of_the_Soviet_Empire/nlLSpT9J_yMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=v+i+%22Lenin%22+Chernobyl+Nuclear+Power+Plant&pg=PA23&printsec=frontcover
 * If you can't see the name on the websites, search the page for "Lenin" and it will be visible. Despite all these clear sources, I was unable to find any translations including 'Lenin' using any other format. 'Lenin' was not placed at the end of the name, or after 'Chernobyl' anywhere I could find.
 * I believe this is because in English, it is common to tack on the unnecessary parts like honorary titles at the start of a name instead of the end. Shoving it in the middle just makes it all sound wrong, which is why I believe this isn't done. But what is the point in arguing over this? I have met the burden of proof repeatedly, and you haven't given me a single piece of evidence to support your claim. The translation has already been made by countless others, all of whom were probably professional translators. They knew better than us, so just use their work. That is Wikipedia's job after all, to use the existing facts, not make up our own. FBryz (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, those translators literally suck. I am shaking my head and laughing at the eccentric who actually typed out 'AEhS' (If we apply this hyper literalist approach to the name, we should literally be spelling out 'named for V.I. Lenin'). The Cold War was like that; there was far less access to native speakers, and people wrote stupid things. Several of those sources omit Chernobyl entirely, and that remains utterly idiotic. It is just clueless Westerners trying to exoticize things. The fact that you can find examples of people writing stupid things does not actually have any bearing on what the more common and correct usage is. By the way, you also included an example of someone just parroting the HBO miniseries...Sredmash (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you not realise everything you are saying is totally unsubstantiated? You can keep saying "nuh uh" as much as you want, but you have not provided a single piece of evidence to back up your point. These are not all even Cold War sources, most of them are more modern, and some by specialists who certainly know better than us. I tried to provide a diverse array of sources, but to dismiss them all based on your opinion or because one of them is related to the HBO series is just immature. You are trying to tell me you are better than every professional translator who has ever provided a translation of the power plant's full title. I know they are not all perfect, but they all follow one clear format. And you are really laughing at the 'AEhS' when your original translation was "Chernobyl Atomic Energy Station in the name of V I Lenin"?
 * I am giving you evidence and logic, but you are just denying everything. As I already demonstrated, no one translates it as 'in the name of' because it is unnecessary and overly literal. In no language are things translated like this, you use approximations such as changing the word ordering. And I don't think anyone finds Lenin an exotic name anywhere in the world. You say "more common and correct" but you don't provide an example, and as I said, I cannot find one, only the translation I provided. If I was cherry picking you would have a point, but I just looked at any names including the word 'Lenin' and that was the only version used in English.
 * And again, like I said, on Wikipedia you are not meant to make up facts you are meant to find them elsewhere, and if there is an issue, add a note to it saying there is an issue, don't just make up your own version and say it is better without evidence. This is the nature of an encyclopaedia, if you don't like it write a blog or something, but Wikipedia is not the place to rewrite established facts, only to describe them. FBryz (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Lemmino
Hello, FBryz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lemmino, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Lemmino


Hello, FBryz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lemmino".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)