User talk:PKo~enwiki/archive 1

Kosovo will be an independent, but I am supporting one type of independence. If you think that I can not or have no rihgt to support something esle, than we have nothing to discuss. My supporting of new Yugoslavia have nothing whit Mladić or Karadžić even whit Greater Serbia. Indenpendance of Montenegro is good for new Start on Balkans, and ofcourse for falling of Koštunica's government. Best regards, --Pockey 16:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right. Some Montenegrins speak Montenegrin language, and 32% of citizens who are Serbs in Montenegro speak Serbian, just like 60% of all citizens of Montenegro. It is good for Montenegro, just like for Serbia to not be colony of any country. Yours Sincerely, --Pockey 17:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No one welcomed you, so I will then. :D

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --HolyRomanEmperor 15:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

hurrah
Hurrah!!! :) --Pockey 15:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Shlisselburg
Hi, PKo! I have once again reverted your edit to Shlisselburg. Here is why.

First of all, it is the policy of the English Wikipedia to use the names of the geographic objects as they are known in English, no matter what the local or historical spelling might be. Shlisselburg, for example, has entries using that particular spelling in both Britannica and Encarta. Furthermore, Russian geo-names are always transliterated (as described ), even if the origins of the name come from a different language. Shlisselburg is one example; Tolyatti, named after Italian communist Palmiro Togliatti, is another.

I hope this is sufficient to answer any questions you might have. You might also want to re-read the Shlisselburg article&mdash;there is a section there dealing with the origins of the name, and yes, "Schlüsselburg" is mentioned there.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank You for Your attention. However, I still wonder, why then Wikipedia uses the (right) name Peterhof and not "Petergof"..?
 * Please, read from here: "They may be names borrowed from Russian through another language, e.g., Petergof→Peterhof."
 * So, same with the German name Shlisselburg→Schlüsselburg.


 * Sincerely,
 * PKo, 25. September 2006, 17.05 (UTC)
 * "Peterhof" is the form that's more common in English than "Petergof". When that's the case, the non-transliterated version takes precedence over the transliteration.  English usage is what matters the most in the English Wikipedia.  In the German Wikipedia, it would, of course, be the predominant German spelling that matters and is used as a title.
 * As for the WP:RUS statement you quoted, the key part of it is "may be". Again, the usage in English is the main factor of whether or not to use forms borrowed from other languages.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You don´t understand: in Russian language there is no 'sch' and 'ü', so in Russian language they must write š (cyrillic ш) and i (и), but they mean with the word "Šlisselburg" (engl. transcr. "Shlisselburg") the German name Schlüsselburg. Same is with the word "Petergof" → Peterhof and "Sankt-Peterburg" → Sankt Peterburg (St. Petersburg in Russian from German).
 * Sincerely,
 * --PKo 16:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * PKo, on the contrary, I understand it very well (Russian is my native language, by the way). Yes, there are no "sch" and "ü" (Roman) letter combinations in Russian, and yes, other means are used to approximate them.  Once the word is "approximated" ("Шлиссельбург", "Петергоф"), the resulting words are what is used by Russians; that's what you will find in the Russian dictionaries.
 * Once a word is adopted, it may migrate to other languages. In case of Shlisselburg, the name migrated to English from Russian, hence the English spelling of "Shlisselburg".  "Peterhof", on the other hand, migrated to English directly from German, bypassing Russian (which would be "Petergof").  Why and how it works is in the end completely unimportant.  What's important, is the preferred modern English usage, and that's what Wikipedia uses.  Just because "Shlisselburg" is "Schlüsselburg" in German is not a good enough reason to change the article's title in the English Wikipedia.  That's simply not the name under which the town is known to Anglophones.  "Schlüsselburg", however, is a redirect and it is mentioned in the body of the article.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You wrote: In case of Shlisselburg, the name migrated to English from Russian, hence the English spelling of "Shlisselburg". Yes, but we know, that is from German, like "Petergof" and "Sankt-Peterburg". For example, I think that You don't suggest that from Russian newspaper or book You wrote "Garri Gopkins" but Harry Hopkins...
 * Sincerely,
 * --PKo 19:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I know perfectly well that the name originated from German&mdash;it is a plain obvious and well-known fact; there is no need to convince me. However, it just so happened that the English language did not borrow it from German, but from Russian, and that's the name that's commonly used in English (as at least two major English language encyclopedias attest).  Wikipedia uses the version commonly used in English; it is Wikipedia's policy.  The fact that the word is originally German is irrelevant in this case.  "Garri Gopkins" is not a valid comparison because it is not the name that's currently commonly used in English, just as "Petergof" is not ("Harry Hopkins" and "Peterhof" are used instead).  I am sorry, but I don't know how else to explain this to you.  The bottom line is that "Schlüsselburg" is unacceptable because Anglophones prefer the other variant.  Unless you can prove otherwise (convincing Britannica editors to change the spelling would be a good first step; pardon my sarcasm), I suggest we close this discussion.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So, Wikipedia shows that there is no logic: Peterhof but Shlisselburg. Pity...
 * Sincerely,
 * --PKo 19:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you still have not understood what I was trying to explain. The logic of the policy is to use the name that's commonly used, not whatever else someone might want to impose on the community (I don't mean you, by the way&mdash;see naming-related archives here for an excellent illustration of what I mean).  The lack of logic you see simply mirrors the lack of logic in natural languages, which are abundant with exceptions and inconsistencies.  Once you accept and understand it, you'll see that it actually simplifies things, not complicates them.  Also, if I may remind you, it is your right to challenge any Wikipedia policy you disagree with.  Regards,&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Koenigsberg
No, it wouldn't. The original name of Kaliningrad did not come into English from Russian, as it was the case with Shlisselburg. That fact is easily verified by running a check against major English-language encyclopedias.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So, no logic. What a pity...
 * Sincerely,
 * --PKo 17:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to add except to refer you to the naming policy for the umpteenth time. How can you not see the logic of that policy???&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, the German name Schlüsselburg it is not written in Russian Схлиссельбург, "Shlisselburg", but Шлиссельбург, "Šlisselburg".
 * Sincerely,
 * --PKo 17:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On that, please re-read WP:RUS. You might also find BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian of interest.  The bottom line is that we generally do not use romanization systems that utilize diacritics.  Any more questions?&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In English You can well use letter š, look at e.g. Škoda Auto.
 * Furthermore, I still can't understand, that You write "Shlisselburg", although Russian czar Peter I the Great gave expressly German name Schlüsselburg to the town. If Кёнигсберг would be Königsberg, then of course Шлиссельбург is Schlüsselburg like Петергоф is Peterhof! Please, be logical.
 * Sincerely,
 * --PKo 18:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PKo, "Škoda" is a Czech name, not Russian. Czech language utilizes Latin alphabet, not Cyrillic, so there is no need to romanize it.  Even with Cyrillic, romanization rules differ&mdash;compare, for example, how romanization of Russian is different from, say, romanization of Ukrainian.
 * As for your second question, would you please finally read the policy? "Use English" means that one is supposed to use the name that is most common in the modern English language.  The variant "Schlüsselburg" is used in modern English, but it's not nearly as common as "Shlisselburg", which is why the latter is the title of the article, and the former is mentioned in the article's body.  With "Peterhof", it's the other way around, but it's all for the same reason.
 * Finally, just to make sure you understand, I am not the person who developed Naming conventions (use English); I merely uphold this policy as any other admin would. If you dislike this policy to the point you think it should be changed, I suggest you stop bombarding me with numerous variations of the same question and move on to How to create policy, or at least to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), where your questions will be answered by other people, who, being more passionate about this topic, may be able to provide you with a more satisfactory answer regarding the policy logic or lack thereof than yours truly.
 * Regards,&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I know, that "Škoda" is a Czech name and Czech language utilizes Latin alphabet. So, You know the latin letter š in English. Why You then write "Shlisselburg", but not "Šlisselburg"? In Russian it is not Схлиссельбург, but Шлиссельбург.
 * Sincerely,
 * --PKo 14:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's Russian, not Czech. Because the policy governing romanization of Russian (WP:RUS) is based on BGN/PCGN system, which specifically targets speakers of English, and not on scientific transliteration/ISO 9, which utilize diacritics that is confusing to many Anglophones.  You know that ISO 9 is not the only transliteration system out there, don't you?  We had to select one of those available, and BGN/PCGN was judged by the community to be the best fit.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So, the Russian letter "ш" is in English "sh". What is then two Russian letters (combined) "сх" in English? Perhaps no "skh", because it comes from Russian "скх"..;)

Sincerely,

--PKo 16:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PKo, it's a pity that you don't bother to read materials at the links I provided, because if you took time just once to read through them, you wouldn't have to ask me all these unnecessary questions. It all there, really.
 * To answer your question anyway&mdash;per WP:RUS/BGN/PCGN, "ш"="sh", "х"="kh", "сх"="skh", and "скх"="skkh". "H/h" is never used by itself.  See, no ambiguity.  For those rare cases where ambiguity exists (such as "ц" vs "тс"), BGN/PCGN provides the interpunct character, but usually it's not a problem even without it as no meaning is lost.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)