Talk:Mogilev

Romanisation

Mogilev is by far the most common name, and is in the city/region's web address. Kazak 04:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Everyone is glad about that fact, now move it back 82.209.208.20 14:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You should use the Belarusian name because the city is in Belarus, not in Russia! President Lukashenka suppresses the Belarusian language even it is the first official language of the country. So he forces to use names of cities in Belarus only in their Russian version. But the Belarusian names are on official signs, yet! Best regards, Juhan, German Wikipedia

You are wrong. Russian and Belarusian have officially equal statuses in Belarus. Belarusian is not the first language. Glebchik (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Mahiloŭ is the standard Belarusian romanisation (Łacinka) of Магілёў. Anatoli (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Using "Mogilev" has no more to do with Mr. Lukashenko than using Cologne has to do with Napoleon Bonaparte. Because Belarus is largely known to English speakers via Russia, the Russian names are much more familiar to English-speakers than the Belarussian names. The fact that the Belarussian government itself tends to use the Russian names in English and non-English publications only strengthens the case for Mogilev. john k (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

John, as you can see from this page, this is not an uncontroversial move. It is not consistent with the notes at WP:CYR (which are referred to by WP:NAME). The article shouldn't be unilaterally moved, without following the procedure at WP:RM (see specifically WP:RM#Requesting uncontroversial moves). —Michael Z. 2009-02-01 15:54 z

In fact, my move does in fact comply with the standards at WP:CYR, specifically, "If a name or word has a conventional English spelling, that is used (see #Conventional names, below)." Mogilev is the conventional English name of the place. WP:RM is just a hive of bureaucratic busybodiness - the "controversy" seems to involve an anonymous user who provides no reasons and a German wikipedia user who appears not to understand our naming policies. Sigh. john k (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Merriam–Webster has the main headword Mahilyow.[1][2] American Heritage Dictionary has Mahilyow, but Dictionary.com has Mogilev.[3][4] NOAD and CanOD both have the main headword at Mahilyow. Current documentary dictionaries are good indicators of a word's usage, and these entries tell me that it is not clear-cut that the conventional name is Mogilev. You'll have to find some strong evidence to convince me that it is. —Michael Z. 2009-02-04 17:28 z

Well, every source from before 1991 will have "Mogilev," to start off with. Obviously that's not an indicator of current usage, but if there's two potentially acceptable names, the fact that older works will all use one of them ought to have some impact in deciding what to use. A Google news search on "Mahilyow" reveals four results, three of them from the same Belarusian news source. There are 16 hits on "Mogilev" from a variety of different sources. Although Britannica uses "Mahilyow," the Columbia Encyclopedia uses "Mogilev". Mogilev gets ten times as many hits on Google Books as Mahilyow (about 1500 to about 150), and there are also way way more hits for Mogilev in Google Scholar (although some of these appear to be publications by people named Mogilev). A search on the domain "government.by" (the Belarusian government) returns numerous hits for Mogilev, and none for Mahilyow. A Lexis-Nexis serach of "Major US and World Publications" turns up 34 hits for Mogilev in the last two years. There are 104 for Mahilyow, but they all derive from the same source, the BBC Monitoring Kiev Unit. A basic google search of pages in English turns up, again, about ten times as many results for Mogilev as for Mahilyow. john k (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a good summary. One might add a few other data points, but I don't think the picture changes much. The UN and other international agencies, and current atlases probably transliterate directly from the Belarusian.

The “correct” article name may be arguable, and in such a case I also assign some weight to preferring a local name. In my opinion, this town is like Lviv or Kharkiv, not well-known enough to have a really established English name, so there is not so much to prevent us from applying WP:CYR and recent references, rather than preferring the Russian version prevalent in the Cold War (i.e., Lvov and Kharkov).

From the article history, it looks like the article has already wandered Mahilyow > Mogilev > Mahilioŭ, briefly > Mogilev > Mahilyow. I don't see a compelling reason to move the article yet again. If you feel very strongly about it, then go ahead and post a notice at geography, Belarus and USSR wikiprojects to get some more opinions, but I don't think this is worth spending energy on. —Michael Z. 2009-02-04 22:03 z

Seems like most of the other Wikipedias use the Belarusian spelling. Like me I guess they don't find this city to have a widely known and established name in foreign languages so the local name has been transliterated just like here. Närking (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RM: (in response to move proposal there)

• Yes but not for those reasons but because the city authorities themselves use Mogilev in English language - Mogilev city executive committee.--Avala (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Mogilev, as the only name recognizable to this anglophone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose move until the issue is addressed at a more macro level. Almost all other Belarussian places are located at Belarussian language transliterations. Changes like this should not be done piecemeal unless this case can be shown to be sui generis vis-à-vis other place such as Babruysk, Hrodna, &c. — AjaxSmack 02:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It is probably true that this should be addressed at a macro level - I'd say that a place like "Babruysk" is not familiar to English speakers at all, and that thus any name could be used, but that the larger cities (Mahilyow/Mogilev, Hrodna/Grodno, Homiel/Gomel, Viciebsk/Vitebsk) should definitely be under their Russian name. But note that already we have Gomel and Vitebsk - of the five largest cities, only Mogilev and Grodno are at the Belarusian forms. I'd think all these, at least, should be at the Russian version. The rest I don't really care about - I'd say they're generally very little known to English-speakers, so it would make sense to use the form most used by the inhabitants, which I suppose could be either Russian or Belarusian, but more likely the latter. It's a different case from the larger cities, which are at least moderately known abroad. john k (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Mahilyow is common usage as well. And I second Ajax. Húsönd 22:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose It infuriates me,when someone says I must use the system for my native language's romanisation,which was developed by the 2 foreign agencies and adopted by the country that doesn't exist more than 20 years!So,please,tell,why don't you use this system for Čapek and Hašek "for better understanding" (Chapek,Hashek,Good soldier Shveik - much better;why I don't see it?Just because it's just adoption from another language).Probably,natives better understand,how to write and pronounce?What if Belarusians start demanding to write Londan,Paryzh,Atava instead of London,Paris,Ottawa "for better understanding"?You know better how to write the names of your cities,so,give us to write it the same.Why Plzeň,but not Smarhoń?Why Vysočina but not Baranavičy?Why Šibenik but not Škloŭ?Why Varaždin but not Ždanovičy?Its all the same,you understand Czech or Croatian languages,but don't understand Belarusian with the same letters.It's nonsense!Or the notorious double-standarts policy?

Move warring

I will not tolerate move warring. The requested move was correctly closed by an administrator based on the discussion. If you wish to contest the move, then you need to restart discussion, not move the page unilaterally and undo the administrative action. DrKiernan (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the move request was made, three editors are in favour (nominator john k, Avala, Septentrionalis), and four opposed (me Mzajac, Närking, AjaxSmack, Húsönd). There is no consensus supporting a move, and your actions are out of line. Please reread the discussion and move the article back. —Michael Z. 2009-02-17 17:54 z

Yes, where is the consensus for a move? Närking (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Improperly resolved move request at talk:Mogilev. —Michael Z. 2009-02-17 18:14 z

Even if it were a vote, which it isn't, there are four in favour of "Mogilev" (Kazak, john k, Septentrionalis, and Avala) so the vote is evenly split. However, the votes are not relevant since this is a discussion not a vote, and the arguments on their side are more compelling. It is the common name in english, and it is the official name in english. These arguments are stronger than the transliteration argument, e.g. we have the article on Moscow at Moscow not Moskva, so Ajax, Närking and Anatoli's argument can be discounted on the basis that common names should be used where possible instead of transliterations. john k already countered your and Húsönd's argument that Mahilyow is also in common use by providing evidence that Mogilev is commoner. Hence, your arguments do not stand up to independent scrutiny. DrKiernan (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Kazak “voted” in 2006, so as you can see, there hasn't been any consensus for this move in a long time. He is currently banned from editing for a full year. [wrong user] He hasn't been active since June. This request was only opened in 2009. You also failed to mention two editors who spoke up after Kazak, but I guess their opinion didn't suit you. You can't recruit editors who aren't even here to support your move.

As a responsible admin, your obligation is to close the request with a ruling of “no consensus”, according to WP:RM: “If there is a clear consensus after this time, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the administrator may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus".” By acting unilaterally on your own preferences you are abusing your privilege. You are thumbing your nose at everyone involved in the discussion here, and starting your own move war.

You're out of line. There is no consensus to support a move. If you wish to contest the current title, then you need to restart discussion, not move the page unilaterally. —Michael Z. 2009-02-18 16:08 z

Regarding your “decision”, DrKiernan, the issue of Belarusian names is not so simple that you can make a snap judgment based on talk in one article. This is why they have been in a state of mild flux for years, why they have been discussed again and again by dozens of editors familiar with different aspects of culture, language and politics affecting the issue, and especially, why it is important to resolve these things with consensus. This is why nominator john k said that “this should be addressed at a macro level.” By showing up out of the blue and ruling like the King of Article Moves, you are resolving nothing, just setting the clock back a couple of yours, and encouraging more divisive and unproductive argument. —Michael Z. 2009-02-18 16:23 z

Re-opened. DrKiernan (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The re-opening is certainly a good idea. But for the time being, I have re-instated DrKiernan's move, and move-protected it (together with a block warning against any admin involved in this dispute who should continue wheel-warring about it). Whether DrKiernan's call was the correct one to make or not, it was a good-faith responsible attempt by an uninvolved admin at reading the consensus of this discussion. Wheel-warring against it is unacceptable. This, of course, should not prejudice the outcome of any further discussion in the context of the renewed move request, and any uninvolved administrator acting responsibly on the basis of whatever consensus emerges is of course welcome to enact any change deemed appropriate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your assessment of the facts is incorrect. DrKiernan did not “read consensus” to close this request; in fact he made a ruling against consensus, as he clearly states: “the vote is evenly split. However, the votes are not relevant since this is a discussion not a vote, and the arguments on their side are more compelling.” (And in case anyone cares what the participating editors think, it is false that the vote was even; whether you count opinions back to 2006 as he did or not, the majority is against the move.) He also announced the decree by stating his assessment of the facts, “Mogilev is the english-language name, as used by most english sources and the Belarusian authorities”, and not even mentioning the discussion or consensus.

DrKiernan failed to rule on consensus, and joined the dispute by ruling based on his opinion about the content. He showed up and did whatever he wanted, without participating in the discussion. This move is arbitrary, unilateral, and contrary to consensus. It is against the word and the spirit of the procudure described at Requested Moves, and shouldn't be upheld.

Relisting the request after forcing the move against consensus is an empty gesture. Start another request or extend this one if you are unhappy with the outcome, but please move the article back to the consensus title. —Michael Z. 2009-02-19 17:55 z

Future Perfect, re-opening the discussion while keeping the current title, after inadequate move, is most counter-productive. It seems to indicate that if there is no new feedback to the discussion, then the new title should remain in place. In order to revoke DrKiernan's inappropriate closure, the previous title should be restored. Húsönd 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

John k's old listing has now been removed from WP:RM, and the notice removed from this article, as a part of routine maintenance. So now that relisting hasn't changed consensus against the move, will the article be moved back? Is the relisting going to be restored as part of the effort to move this article from Mahilyow to Mogilev? Or what?

I've informed the editor who performed the clean-up that this request is re-opened. —Michael Z. 2009-02-20 20:49 z

There's now a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#DrKiernan moving articles against consensus. —Michael Z. 2009-02-21 02:45 z

Mahilyow

The city's name in Belarusian is Магілёў, Mahiloŭ. So this or at least Mahilyow should be the name for the article despite destructive Russian chauvinist vandalism on the Wiki. --Czalex 22:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's so strange to see Belarusan city in Russian spelling just because they name it that way. --Renessaince 14:49, 1 October 2010 (EEST)

We don't care if the name is in Russian or Belarusian... what we do care about is using the name that is most recognizable by English speaking readers (this is after all the English version of Wikipedia). So... if you want to change the article title, you need to examine English language sources and demonstrate that they use the name you prefer. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request from E258, 10 November 2010

Please change 'Baltic countires full detail railway map. Belarus and Baltics in C1 sector' to 'Baltic countries full detail railway map. Belarus and Baltics in C1 sector' as this the clearly a spelling mistake. Thanks E258 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks for spotting this. I've also unprotected the page – sorry for keeping it protected for so long, I think I must have meant to only move-protect it and hit the edit-protection by mistake. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mogilev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://belstat.gov.by/homep/ru/publications/2011/bul_population.rar
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160131022820/http://www.torpedomogilev.by/ to http://www.torpedomogilev.by/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101220065219/http://sumqayit-ih.gov.az//content.php?page=beynelxalq_elaqeler to http://sumqayit-ih.gov.az/content.php?page=beynelxalq_elaqeler
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://parovoz.com/maps/supermap/supermap.php?X=C&Y=1&LANG=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mogilev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080927122532/http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/belarus_topographic_map to http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/belarus_topographic_map

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mogilev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150112133342/http://mogilev-region.gov.by/en/news/mogilev_and_ar_rayyan_signed_agreement_contact to http://mogilev-region.gov.by/en/news/mogilev_and_ar_rayyan_signed_agreement_contact

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)