 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Move edit
Why don't we move this page to "Yevdokiya Streshnyova", to comply with WP:RUS? Where exactly did the current title come from? "Yudoksia" (how it would be read) is quite different from "Yevdokiya", and "Streshneva" is not the correct last name. Esn 21:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:19, August 13, 2009 (UTC)
Move back edit
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was move to Eudoxia Streshneva.
Yevdokiya Streshnyova → Eudoxia Streshneva — The move is against another Wiki guideline: common name. Eudoxia Streshneva is known to historians, but Yevdokiya Streshnyova isn't. Eudoxia Streshneva is used by 200 websites, while Yevdokiya Streshnyova is used by 10 websites. Even Britannica refers to her as Eudoxia. In other words, Eudoxia Streshneva is the most common name, while Yevdokiya Streshnyova is original research. I propose (and support) moving the page back to Eudoxia Streshneva. Surtsicna (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose. Most of the 200 websites using the original variant are either wiki-mirrors or sources which are hardly reliable. When those are filtered out, only a handful of references remains—a number so small that it cannot be used to support the "more common name" assertion. At any rate, while "Eudoxia" is used by a few relevant works, "Yevdokiya" is the variant used by Slavonic and East European review. As per WP:RUS, when several variants are available with none of them being clearly more predominant than the others, the variant most close to WP:RUS should be used. I wouldn't object to moving the article to "Yevdokiya Streshneva" (as I was unable to find a proper source using the "Streshnyova" spelling", but I can't support moving the article to its original place.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:09, August 13, 2009 (UTC)
- Eugene Schuyler and other Romanov-specialized books refer to her as Eudoxia. So do Terrible tsarinas: five Russian women in power, The Romanovs: three centuries of an ill-fated dynasty, and other works related to the Romanovs. See also results for tsaritsa Eudoxia, tsarina Eudoxia, and czarina Eudoxia. Surtsicna (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Strongly support because of the comparison: Tsarina Yevdokiya appears in 3 googlable books - and two of those are cross-references to the English spelling; the article title appears in none. WP:RUS is not a license to displace actually employed transliterations by ones we invent. (Whether other articles should be Yevdokiya is a different question; we already treat Peter the Great separately from the rest of the Pyotrs.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Incidentally, all of these sources are being mentioned here, so why aren't they included in the article? You guys are obviously spending all kinds of time looking them up, and that effort would be much better spent in expanding the article (including the references that you do find) then arguing about the relatively inconsequential article name.
— V = I * R (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)- Two of my three are the Britannica, and all three are available in snippets or less. Google Books is a relatively useful source for this sort of thing; it is less useful for content. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yea but, come on, even a tertiary or marginally useful reference has to be better then leaving the article completely unreferenced.
— V = I * R (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)- But not one I can only read four lines of. Feel free to follow the links yourself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yea but, come on, even a tertiary or marginally useful reference has to be better then leaving the article completely unreferenced.
- Two of my three are the Britannica, and all three are available in snippets or less. Google Books is a relatively useful source for this sort of thing; it is less useful for content. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Incidentally, all of these sources are being mentioned here, so why aren't they included in the article? You guys are obviously spending all kinds of time looking them up, and that effort would be much better spent in expanding the article (including the references that you do find) then arguing about the relatively inconsequential article name.
- Support move to common name, per Septentrionalis. If there's an accepted transliteration that's used in English, we should use that – regardless of how we transliterate names that don't have a widely accepted English name. Jafeluv (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Evosoho (talk • contribs) 19:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)