This article is within the scope of WikiProject Seamounts, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SeamountsWikipedia:WikiProject SeamountsTemplate:WikiProject SeamountsSeamounts articles
This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
A fact from Ioah Guyot appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 October 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that there is in excess of 150 million tons of phosphorite ore on Ioah Guyot, a seamount in the Pacific Ocean?
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
If the guyot in question is named specifically in honour of Institute of Oceanology of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (or in Russian - Институт Океанологии Академии Наук СССР) then the correct name should be "Ioan". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.136.15.5 (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
While I agree with the sentiment, it seems like sources are actually split on this question and many of them use "Ioah". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sentiments have nothing to do with it - I don't think you read my comment right - it's all about transliteration of an originally Cyrillic name. Also, I've consulted the sources cited in the Article - half of them refer to the guyot as "Fedorov guyot", the other half - as "IOAN guyot". I'm reversing changes and would like the article title to reflect the correct spelling as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.136.15.5 (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
It's not quite as simple as that; the thing about geographical names is that sometimes misspellings become the actual names and then we don't correct them. I see that "Fedorov" is mainly used by Russian sources and "Ioah" mainly by English sources and per WP:Article titlesWikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. that gives "Ioah" priority. Unless I misanalyzed the sources, that is. And by the way, it was Shellwood who reversed your changes, not me.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
