Talk:Ulaanbaatar/Archive 2

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was

Untitled

no consensus as yet. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be Ulaanbaatar

Yup. Still. Let's spell the town's name correctly, not incorrectly. Vidor (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that the article should use the name most commonly used in English. The question here is, how well established are the two names, "Ulan Bator" and "Ulaanbaatar", in English? "Ulan Bator" is without doubt the older, better established name. However, (1) compared with many old names that have become established in English, it is not particularly old (perhaps the best part of a century), and (2) it is merely a transliteration via a third language (Russian). The second point is by no means a clincher. After all, English uses the French name of "Cologne" in preference to the German name "Köln" without any problems. In the end, the question is, how old and well-established must a usage be before it becomes entrenched in English as the standard name?

In the case of Ulaanbaatar, "Ulaanbaatar" is gaining ground recently as more people go there and find out the Mongolian transliteration of the name. So at the moment "Ulan Bator" is probably better established, but "Ulaanbaatar" shouldn't be ruled out. (I personally use Ulaanbaatar, but I don't necessarily consider this is a good reason for making it the article title.)

Finally, just as an aside, one problem with "Ulan Bator" is that it tends to result in the incorrect English pronunciaton "Ulan BaTOR".

Bathrobe (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The good folks at Wikitravel use Ulaanbaatar. The local English newspaper uses Ulaanbaatar. The official English city website uses both Ulaanbaatar and "Ulanbator", without the space. The American embassy uses Ulaanbaatar. The official tourism website uses Ulaanbaatar. The American School there uses Ulaanbaatar. The British embassy uses Ulaanbaatar. The U.S. State Department uses Ulaanbaatar. The Mongolian embassy in the United States uses Ulaanbaatar.

This case should turn on verifiable evidence of English usage. The requestor should build a case by compiling such evidence...citations in reliable sources, media, reference works etc. The "correct" and "accurate" name is the one that English predominately uses, irrespective of the narrative we build to describe how English came to use it.Erudy (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For a start, Britannica uses Ulaanbaatar: [1].

Bathrobe (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Strong Oppose - Google Scholar check is 2,390 Ulan Bator and 4,370 Ulaan Baatar. Too close for comfort. Both forms are used, but I have seen more usage of Ulan Bator than Ulaan Baatar. Rarelibra (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    • (+3830 for the actually requested name, Ulaanbaatar). Above comment moved here from WP:RM. Dekimasuよ! 04:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

• Given the evidence here that Ulaanbaatar is both more common and more correct, support. Dekimasuよ! 04:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support This is pretty obvious unlike the case of Myanmar vs. Burma. Here, Ulaanbaatar is more common than Ulan Bator (although not overwhelmingly so), similar to the way Myanmar is more common than Burma. However, in Myanmar/Burma, it was argued that the US and UK governments generally use Burma and Google Scholar has a slight preference for Burma so Burma was chosen. In the case of Ulaanbaatar, Google Scholar has a preference for Ulaanbaatar (especially if you limit searches to after the new spelling was adopetd) and the US (White House, US Embassy in Mongolia, CIA Factbook) and UK governments generally use Ulaanbaatar over Ulan Bator. Furthermore, the Indian government[2] and the UN[3] also use Ulaanbaatar. There is no contest here. Further, what do other major encyclopedias use? Bathrobe has already shown that Britannica uses Ulaanbaatar. Encarta uses Ulaanbaatar[4]. 130.132.94.174 (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

comment: You know that the current Mongolian spelling was already adopted around 1941/1946, don't you? Yaan (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Previous move and move request history

• Talk:Ulan Bator/Archive 01#Requested move - 24 October 2006 (UTC) - move in the other direction, supported almost unanimously.
• Talk:Ulan Bator/Archive 01#Ulaanbaatar Preference - 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Ulan Bator/Archive 01#Page name - 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If the current move request here is supposed to have any chance, then new arguments and/or usage data must be presented, that weren't known in the previous discussions on the topic. Otherwise it's just a rehash of old debates, hoping that a randomly attracted different audience might come to different conclusions (which would violate WP:CONSENSUS). --Latebird (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

comment: Does the google scholar data not count as "new"? google news currently has 27 hits for Ulan Bator [5] and 54 for Ulaanbaatar. [6], but I won't judge this as compelling evidence. But I also don't see bathrobe's argument having been put forward in the earlier discussions. Yaan (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You can restrict your search to specific date ranges if you want to know how old or new the publications returned are. Some of them are not dated at all, though, so you'll get fewer total results. --Latebird (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In English Wikipedia English names are in use. Only if is not established English name we need look for more frequent usage name. What English name has Ulan Bator? Ulaanbaatar is Mongolian name, not English. But Ulaanbaatar is in use in English language as accurate Mongolian name transliteration, but English name is Ulan Bator only. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As with Turin/Torino, I don't think the shift is yet conclusive so oppose. — AjaxSmack 00:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As an aside and not of relevance to the merits of the move, the English name, Ulan Bator, is portrayed as a Russian transliteration into English with the implication that it is somewhat unique (except obviously for the Russian). However, interwiki links will show that it is common across European languages (e.g. es:Ulán Bator, fr:Oulan-Bator, hu:Ulánbátor, pl:Ułan Bator) ans even in Asia (Chinese: Wūlánbātuō, Japanese: Uranbaatoru, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Indonesian: Ulan Bator). — AjaxSmack 00:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not surprising given that Mongolia was a Soviet satellite. I suspect that other languages are more conservative (less subject to international political pressure) than English. So while English has switched over to "Beijing", French still largely uses Pékin and Japanese uses the pronunciation ペキン. (I am rather curious to know how the Japanese pronounced 北京 back in the Edo period).

At any rate, if anything, English should not be looking at usage in these other languages, which often tend to be behind English in changing over names.

Bathrobe (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Stay with the conventional English name until the convention changes. We are intended for general readers, not for specialists; still less for specialists on Mongolian soil. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• How do we know Ulaanbaatar is not the conventional English name now? --Polaron | Talk 18:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As a sidenote: On dewiki, the slightly different naming criteria have led to the title de:Ulaanbaatar. As a consequence, move requests come in at regular intervals demanding to use the "correct" German name "Ulan Bator", exactly mirroring the regular requests in the other direction on enwiki. IF we do the move, expect the same to happen here. In other words, whatever we do, the debates won't be over for years to come, so we better have good reasons solidy anchored in WP policy for the actual choice. --Latebird (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Stay with the conventional English name. Temur (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support based on my own evidence (but only just). I was neutral until I went to Google news: Ulan Bator = 6890, Ulaanbaatar = 4360 (61-39%). So at first I am opposing. But then I limit news searches to this century, and it becomes Ulan Bator = 4350, Ulaanbaatar = 3840 (53-47%). The suggested name is becoming more common in recent years, so now my oppose is weak. Then I see that both Encarta and Britannica encyclopedias use "Ulaanbaatar", so I (just) decide to support. Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How do we know Ulaanbaatar is not the conventional English name now?--Ulaanbaatar IS the conventional English name now, as we have shown from a wealth of sources. I'm a little bit puzzed that certain Wikipedians believe they know better than the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom, the two most populous English-speaking countries. Also the government of Australia. Also the government of Canada. Another non-governmental source: Lonely Planet, publishers of the best (only?) English-language travel guide. And, finally, becauses people tend to forget this, "Ulaanbaatar" is in fact the correct English transliteration of "Улаанбаатар". Vidor (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We all know that Google searches aren't conclusive proof of anything, but a comparison of the following searches suggests that Ulaanbaatar may be in the lead:

"Ulan Bator, Mongolia": 31,600

"Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia": 97,700

By adding "Mongolia", the search is largely confined to English, although I can't guarantee that other languages aren't included.

Still, the margin of over 3:1 suggests that "Ulaanbaatar" is much closer to general acceptance than we thought.

Bathrobe (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Chinese name

It is completely normal if it will be both Mongolian and Chinese names for the period of Chinese rule. A large percentage of UB population were Chinese in this period. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Restored original version of the above. --Latebird (talk) 06:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

To AjaxSmack: Please don't revert without explanation. It's been made clear in the previous talks that there was no Chinese rule, it was Manchu rule. And what d'you wanna imply by including the Chinese name? Why not Russian name then? Gantuya eng (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Manchu Qing Empire ruled Mongolia indirectly or directly until 1911. Its primary language of officialdom (almost solely in later years) was written Chinese. While the Chinese name probably should not be in the first sentence, it is perfectly appropriate in the Names section. For example, the Ashgabat article gives the Russian and Persian names due to historical associations.

None of this is controversial but it doesn't really matter anyway. Nice was never a part of Italy but the Italian name is listed prominently. Ditto with Nancy, Listing a foreign language name does not denote a territorial claim or signify any type of chauvinism, it's just part of the knowledge that makes up an encyclopedia. — AjaxSmack 05:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice was part of a variety of Italian states over the centuries and only fell to France in 1866. It also has a a substantial number of Italian speaking inhabitants. Nancy was part of the German Empire and the German Holy Roman Empire, hence the archaic German spelling (the Luxembourgish looks more like a curiosity, added because it is closely related). Those two "examples" therefore contribute nothing of relevance to this discussion. --Latebird (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Collegues, Gantuya edited my post replacing word "Chinese" with term "Manchu". It is first time when discussion (not article) was edited not by the author. And Gantuya uses "citation needed" for the facts wellknown. Yes, dynasty in Qing Empire was Manchu, but it was Chinese state. Even when Mongolian dynasty ruled China it was Chinese state ruled by Mongolians. And Inner Mongolia is Mongolian, but ruled by the Chinese Communist Party.

About former Chinese presence in Urga before liberation. You, dear Gantuya, really sure it was small percentage of Chinese? I was not born in this period, you see. But every book talking about Urga of this period describes Chinese (and Russian) strong presence in Urga. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Latebird is correct about Nice and Nancy and that was exactly my point. Both were under the influence of states speaking other languages in the pre-national era without ever having being attached to the modern nations associated with those languages. Likewise, as User:Bogomolov.PL ably points out, Urga (now Ulan Bator) was under the influence of states using Chinese even if it has never been a part of the modern nation-state of China (post-1911). I personally disapprove of incongruent use of national names for pre-national empires whether Chinese, Mongol, or Russian. However, my opinion is just that and is not always reflected in material on these topics. Wikipedia is for the general reader who might not immediately know that the "Manchu Qing Empire" was in fact China. And China it was according to most English-language scholarship. The Manchus were so thoroughly Sinicized that, by the end of the Empire, knowledge of the language in the court was moribund and has since become nearly extinct. Mongolia was outside of the Chinese adminstrative structure but it was certainly under Chinese influence by virtue of its status as a Qing territory. This does not legitimate any Chinese territorial claims on Mongolia; it's just a reflection of historical circumstances. This usage is perfectly compatible with Naming conventions (geographic names).

The case for including Chinese names for the city are augemnted by continued claims by the Republic of China on Taiwan that Mongolia is part of China (click on this: ). Once again, Wikipedia is not validating the claim, just reporting it. (See Guayana Esequiba, South Tibet, and Aksai Chin for instances where Wikipedia covers territorial disputes using names put forth by the claimant in the title.) I added the Chinese names for the city with a quick explanation of their background at the bottom of the Names section. This is relevant, useful information appropriate for an encyclopedia. (E.g., one might wonder why there is a Kùlún Street in Taipei and now one can find out why.) — AjaxSmack 18:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The point you were trying to make with those examples was rather difficult to figure out, because the terms "Germany" and "Italy" are commonly used in the way that you don't seem to like (can't expect anyone to know of your peculiar opinion, can you?).

The relation between Mongolia and the Qing Empire is a borderline case under several aspects, and depending on who you ask, the Qing Empire was Chinese or not, and Mongolia was a part of it or only a vassal, all offering valid arguments. But that seems really besides the point. Since we're not talking about the country but about a specific city here, we'll have to look at its specific history in this context. As it turns out, Ulan Bator was the seat of the Qing Amban (local representative). I think this justifies mentioning both the Manchu (if known) and the Chinese name of the city. Quite a few location in Mongolia also have relevant (historical) Chinese names (eg. more than one "Maimaichen" = trading post). On the other hand, that does not justify adding Chinese names to random other locations in Mongolia (nobody has suggested that, just outlining the limits of my approval). --Latebird (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am supporting Latebird opinion. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 11:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Latebird that we should not add "Chinese names to random other locations in Mongolia." If numerous, they could be placed at a location like Names of Mongolian cities in different languages or, if few, at Names of Asian cities in different languages. — AjaxSmack 22:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

AjaxSmack, the primary language of the Manchu Qing Empire was the Manchu language, especially for the non-Chinese part of the empire. Indeed, 庫倫 is just the Chinese transcription of Manchu kuren (from Mongolian küriy-e). --Nanshu (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not true, especially for the later years of the Empire. You can read about it right here at Wikipedia at the Manchu article:

"During the Qing Dynasty, the Manchu government made efforts to preserve Manchu culture and the language. These efforts were largely unsuccessful in that Manchus gradually adopted the customs and language of the surrounding Han Chinese and, by the nineteenth century, spoken Manchu was rarely used even in the Imperial court....Over the course of centuries the Manchus were gradually assimilated into the Han Chinese culture and eventually they became a de facto integral part of China with their culture, history and territory."

The Manchu language was almost extinct by 1911 (even in Manchuria) — there are fewer than 70 native speakers alive today — so it could hardly have been the "primary language." — AjaxSmack 04:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's good to know there are a lot of things behind oversimplified encyclopedic articles. Manchu was taught (as the second language) to non-Manchu people like Mongols and Solons even after the Manchus in the capital ceased to speak Manchu. If my memory is correct, some old Manchu experts in the PRC had such a background.

As for Khüree, here is an interesting report [7]. The National Central Archives (Үндэсний төв архив) of Mongolia houses documents concerning the Office of the Manchu Amban Stationed at Khüree (М-1: Хүрээнд сууж хэрэг шийтгэгч манж сайдын яам). Librarian Delgermaa made a rough estimate of 60% for the proportion of documents written in Manchu (and the rest is Mongolian). --Nanshu (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The state servants in Mongolia were required to know the Manchu language. To check the stylistics of documents they developed, they would translate them from Mongolian to Manchu and back (as I read in a journal). Gantuya eng (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I can agree with the rationale for "Kulun", but would it be OK to move "Wulanbatuo" to a footnote? If we mention Kulun, then telling the reader that the PRC uses a transscription of "Ulaanbaatar" is of course quite relevant, I just think this relevancy only relates to the chinese name, not to the article as a whole. Second question, what exactly is the merit of giving the simplified form for Kulun? It does not seem to have (had) an official status anywhere where the name is (was) official, and my understanding is that the 'translation' from traditional to simplified chinese generally causes rather few problems, technically and otherwise (less problems than, say, the transition from cyrillic to traditional Mongolian script and vice versa). Yaan (talk) 16:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if you want to ditch the simplified form — I just cut and pasted it from a previous edit. However, the simplified form should not be seen as a different name. It's more like a different typeface, so simplified forms are retroactive and extend back through history. Germans don't write German names from before 1941 in Fraktur and PRChinese don't use traditional forms for older placenames. — AjaxSmack 22:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please let's keep the ROC/PRC stuff away from here alltogether. For one, I doubt that ordinary people in Taiwan really still say "Kulun", and the "claims" of Taiwan are only still in their constitution because the PRC won't let them change that without threatening war. That conflict is entirely irrelevant to the city we're talking about here, and is already discussed at apropriate length elsewhere. --Latebird (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep what you want away but Taiwanese do still use Kùlún and not just as a street name. Until this decade, they still studied Chinese geography which included all of Mongolia and maps marked the "province's" capital as Kùlún with no Wūlánbātuō to be found anywhere. I haven't seen recent textbooks which may use Wūlánbātuō since Taipei is now twinned/sister cities with it, but the vast majority (ages 20-60) were taught Kùlún. Many people in Taiwan know that Mongolia doesn't use Kùlún now but Wūlánbātuō is a little bit of a nonsense word in Chinese like Wūlǔmùqí (Ürümqi, Taiwan still uses Díhuà 迪化) and is usually not committed to memory precisely to those of more casual interest. (Think Mumbai or Kolkata for your average North American). — AjaxSmack 04:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If we have sources to show that they really still use that name there, then by all means include that information. It's just the by now rather theoretical "claims" story that doesn't need to be repeated in every article about a Mongolian location. --Latebird (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am now a bit ambivalent about including the chinese name again: Maybe the way this is handled in the Prague article is better? They don't have any mention of the German name, even though the city had a sizeable German-speaking population until WWII, and was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire until 1918. Of course "Prague" is not so different from "Prag", but then Kulun is also just a transscription of Khuree (or Kuriye, if you want to). Most of the Chinese population in "Kulun" apparently really lived in the Maimaicheng, which seems to have been a separate city, and a Kulun street in Taibei is no more relevant for this article than a Rue de Warsowie in Paris would be for the article on Warsaw - for this, wikipedia has redirects and disambiguation pages (there is another Kulun/Kuriye in eastern Inner Mongolia). What would be relevant can probably be found somewhere in the help pages, it is something like appearence in english-language literature (if you can give some examples) and some historical reasons (stronger than those for giving the german names of Qingdao or Windhoek in the relevant articles). But then of course all these articles have no section about "names", soo ... Yaan (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the current revision? Yaan (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The relevant guideline seems to be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). My impression is that it really boils down to "Did Chinese live in Khuree?", or "Can we find examples of Kulun appearing in English-language literature". The first question might be subdivided into "Should we consider Maimaicheng part of Khuree or not?" and "Do the apparently rather temporary stays (as described by Pozdneyev here count as 'inhabitation'?". Yaan (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Another possible solution could be to subdivide the first section and add a subsection under a title like "Names in foreign languages", which could then cover "Urga", "Kulun", and other not-so-obvious foreign names. Then the chinese names would be not as hidden as it is now, OTOH there would be little risk of understanding its mention as POV-pushing. Any opinions? Yaan (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's really not a need for a "Names in foreign languages" section; those can be entered at Names of Asian cities in different languages. And there's no need to determine the exact number of Chinese residents in the city at a given time. Some of the may have been Hakkas and not spoken Mandarin anyway. The relevant fact is that the city was the administrative center of Outer Mongolia under the Qing Empire, a country that used written Chinese as its primary language of state. The use of "Kulun" is was important enought that is has made its way into English sources as well and, as such, should not be excluded from mention.

In addition to "Urga," the usual name for the city in English during Qing rule, "Kulun" appeared frequently in English texts as can be seen from Google Books results. However, "Kulun" has even survived to the present, albeit usually to refer to events during the Qing and usually parenthetically. Example quotes found from a Google Books search include:

• "70 miles north of Kulun in Outer Mongolia." (1956)
• "the delegation stopped over at Kulun (now re-named Ulan Bator)" (1961)
• "to the north of Kulun (Urga), Outer Mongolia." (1964)
• "The party began in Kulun (now Ulan Bator) in 1919." (1985)
• "The group departed from Moscow by train in late 1926 and reached Kulun, Mongolia in early 1927." (1995)
• "caravan trade between Zhangjiakou and Kulun (contemporary Ulan Batour)" (2001)
• "was stationed at Urga (Ch. Kulun) to administer the affairs" (2004)
• "an independent Mongolian theocracy was declared in the political center of Outer Mongolia, Urga (aka Kulun to the Chinese" (2006)

While this is not evidence of widespread English usage, it is certainly enough to justify its mention in the Ulan Bator article. Once again such inclusion has nothing to do with present territorial claims or with ascribing national characteristics to pre-national empires. — AjaxSmack 02:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But we do have about five or six Mongolian names, as well as five non-Mongolian ones. Actually, I do not care so much, and your examples of use in literature seem relevant enough. But is there any disadvantage of having the subsection (except that it clutters the table of contents a bit) ? Yaan (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Subsections are fine except the that I would rename "In foreign languages" "In other languages" since English is not foreign to many English Wikipedia users (and Mongolian is). — AjaxSmack 15:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should mention Urga, if only to reassure the reader he's in the right place. Histories of the nineteenth century tend to use it, because their sources do. If Kulun can be handled in a similar manner, great; if not, why not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your addition again, because Urga is already explained in the paragraph following it. No need to do that twice. --Latebird (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

History

I did a rewrite of the history section. Most of it seemed unsourced anyway, and what was sourced did not seem terribly relevant for an article of this size (what impact did the Dalai visit in 1904 have on the town?). It is still far from perfect, though. I also think a section on ger quarters somewhere in the article would be nice. Yaan (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

History Part is not correct. People are mixed ulaanbaatar with "ikh - khuree". "Ikh-khuree" used to be mongolian capital and at that time it was seat of Jebtsundamba Khutagt. When ulaanbaatar was established Jebtsundamba was dead, and none of the chinese where there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.234.128.138 (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Ulaanbaatar was not established in 1924, it only got a new name. Your argument would imply that Volgograd has no history before the 1960s, St. Petersburg has no history between 1916 and the 1990s, or even that Lenin, Stalin, Trotzky were never born. Yaan (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Mongolian script

I think that in the modern orthography, Ulaanbaatar is usually spelt "ulaɣanbaɣatur" instead of "ulaɣan baɣatur". --Nanshu (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's right. Gantuya eng (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will change that some of these days. Thanks for pointing it out. Yaan (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's "Ulaanbaatar" not "Ulaan baatar" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.234.132.59 (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet another piece of evidence for spelling "Ulaanbaatar"

The American School of Ulaanbaatar, which offers K-12 education in English, knows how to spell the name of the city correctly. Vidor (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And here's another: the English website for Mongolian Airlines. Vidor (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, any organization within Mongolia will of course use the Mongolian spelling. That's just common sense, but doesn't define common English use. The proposal has been closed as no consensus once more. Until more compelling evidence turns up, it's probably better to give it a rest for another while. --Latebird (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As do many, many organizations outside Mongolia, as shown above. And I don't feel like giving it a a rest. Vidor (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The convention appears to favor Ulaanbaatar now. Mongolia is so rarely mentioned that the convention can take less time to change. Not many people have even heard of the place or anything beyond Genghis Khan. Also, shouldn't we be telling people the correct name and not reinforcing an incorrect usage? Giving it a rest makes no sense. That's like saying "The economy is in a recession but we can't agree on what to so let's give it a rest.--Metallurgist (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Töv aimag

The website of Töv aimag does not seem to yield any evidence of Bilegt (or his predecessor, Batbayar, for that matter) being the governor of Töv aimag. Of course this might just be some kind of accident, anyway the statement about Bilegt also being the governor of Töv was unsourced, so I removed it.

The site does give Enkhbat as the name of the current Aimgiin zasag darga, but I am not entirely sure whether "governor" is really meant to mean "Aimgiin zasag darga" (rather than, say, Aimgiin darga if such a title exists).

The website has also a lot of nice info on the individual sums of the aimag, if someone likes to deal with such stuff. Yaan (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "zasag darga" is the biggest shot in an aimag, so probably it corresponds to governor. Temur (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's widespread to say "aimag governor", "soum governor", "bagh governor", "district governor", and "horoo governor". Gantuya eng (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Засаг дарга is not elected by the population and so governor (in american sense) is not accurate, but the competences are the same, so governor may be is possible. :::About aimgiin darga. The Засаг дарга is term from Constitution.

And thank you, Yaan, for your attention. I know both generations of Tov site and I didn't pey any attention to this question.

Sums descriptions are in Mongolian (Zuun Mod is in English only), theat is the problem for me. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

history

IMO the history section now puts too much weigth on the events in 1989/1990. While it is true that these events were very significant for Mongolia, and by extension, for Ulaanbaatar, I think it is wrong to devote 30% of the history section to them. Every visitor to UB can immediatly spot the direct traces of socialism, as well as the signs of a market economy. He can not spot direct traces of hunger strike x, demonstration y or constituency win z. we might as well write how Baron Ungern's first attack on Khuree was repealed on day a, how he freed the Bogd Khan on day b, how he succeeded in taking the city on day c (although outnumbered!), etc. I think no-one is served by this kind of inclusionism. If we look at articles like Paris, Prague Gdansk, Beijing, or Berlin, we see that even events of global (historically or at least symbolically) importance, like the Storming of the Bastille and Parisian Commune, the Prague Spring, the Gdansk shipyard strikes, the communist takeover of Beijing, or the Nazi takeover and Berlin Wall are all just mentioned in one or two sentences (the Tiananmen Square protests are not mentioned at all on the Beijing page), and everybody who wants to know details is directed to more specific articles. Yaan (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Khuree is khuree. Ulaanbaatar is ulaanbaatar. If you wanna write about baron ungerin go to khuree[8]--Gunbilegt (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

By that reasoning, we should really remove all that pre-1992 history from the page of the country named Mongol Uls. Since it only received that name in 1992. Yaan (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Name

I rather think it should be Ulaanbaatar. Some sources:

• US Embassy in Mongolia - http://mongolia.usembassy.gov/
• Britannica - http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9074137/Ulaanbaatar
• The British Embassy in Ulaanbaatar - http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1087554253488
• UN in Mongolia - http://www.un-mongolia.mn/
• FIFA - http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=mgl/countryInfo.html

Surely this should be enough? --TheNamer (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a normal diplomatic courtesy to use local (Ulaanbaatar) form, that is why at your list are present two ebassies, UN office in Mongolia and FIFA. Local authorities are using modern transliteration of Mongolian name, traditional English name is in use mostly out of Mongolia. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Previous moves and move requests (all rejected because they failed to demonstrate an actual change in common English use):

• Talk:Ulan Bator/Archive 01#Requested move - 24 October 2006 (UTC) - move in the other direction, supported almost unanimously.
• Talk:Ulan Bator/Archive 01#Ulaanbaatar Preference - 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Ulan Bator/Archive 01#Page name - 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Ulan Bator#It should be Ulaanbaatar - 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much of a point in starting the same debate again just a few weeks later. --Latebird (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a mischaracterization. The presented evidence is clear that Ulaanbaatar is now more common. It's just the editors who edit this page do not like it to be moved. Since there is significant opposition despite the evidence, the status quo has remained. --Polaron | Talk 19:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I really wish the evidence was as clear as you seem to think it is, because I always use Ulaanbaatar myself off-wiki. But if we leave away the encyclopedically irrelevant Google results (including their hundreds if not thousands of Mongolian travel sites, I have written one myself), then the result is more or less a tie. And in case of such a tie, the naming conventions give precedence to the English name. After observing the topic closely for a long time, I don't expect significant new evidence to turn up for at least another year. And you do realize that the last rename request was closed as "no consensus" because of that just four weeks ago, don't you? --Latebird (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not all editors. Some of us do want to move the article to reflect the correct spelling of the city's name and have fought hard to make that happen. Vidor (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Good points. As for "encyclopaedically irrelevant" travel results, there seem to be just as many travel sites pointing to "Ulan Bator" as there are pointing to "Ulaanbaatar".

As for naming conventions giving precedence to "the English name", could you give a source for stating definitively that "Ulan Bator" is the English name? People keep citing encyclopaedias (Britannica), dictionaries, and very reputable or official web sites here in support of the position that "Ulaanbaatar" is, indeed, now the English name, but you've simply dismissed this by saying that "the English name has precedence". It would be nice if you could provide sources to prove that "Ulaanbaatar" is not the English name. Giving "Ulan Bator" precedence because it is "the English name" is kind of begging the question.

I think that the balance between "Ulan Bator" and "Ulaanbaatar" is a delicate one. The main problem with "Ulaanbaatar" is that it may not have gathered enough critical mass internationally to be considered the normal name in English. But it is coming.

As I pointed out above, on a Google search of "ulan bator, mongolia" and "ulaanbaatar, mongolia" (to limit searches to English), we get:

"ulan bator, mongolia" -- 51,000

"ulaanbaatar, mongolia" -- 153,000

That's a pretty good margin in favour of Ulaanbaatar (3:1).

By the way, a similar search on "ulan bator, mongolei" and "ulaanbaatar, mongolei" (German) vs "ulan bator, mongolie" and "ulaanbaatar, mongolie" (French) gets the following:

"ulan bator, mongolei" -- 3,620

"ulaanbaatar, mongolei" -- 5,810

"ulan bator, mongolie" -- 1,770

"ulaanbaatar, mongolie" -- 3,700

The differential in English appears to be considerably higher than it is for either German or French.

Of course, there could be various reasons for this, including:

• English is more open to international name changes than either German or French.
• Mongolians are more likely to be using English as an international language than German or French; thus the influence of the native form "Ulaanbaatar" is higher on English web pages.

This is, of course, speculation. Nevertheless, the evidence is that "Ulaanbaatar" is coming very much to the fore and it is not surprising that proponents of the change to have the Wikipedia article relocated to the local Mongolian name feel that their case is not being given a good hearing.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Other Google searches:

Google Australia:

"ulan bator, mongolia" -- 402

"ulaanbaatar, mongolia" -- 1,480

Google New Zealand:

"ulan bator, mongolia" -- 14

"ulaanbaatar, mongolia" -- 95

Google, United Kingdom:

"ulan bator, mongolia" -- 3,450

"ulaanbaator, mongolia" -- 4,620

Google, Ireland:

"ulan bator, mongolia" -- 123

"ulaanbaatar, mongolia" -- 1,510

Google, Canada:

"ulan bator, mongolia" -- 645

"ulaanbaatar, mongolia" -- 9,510

Google, South Africa:

"ulan bator, mongolia" -- 175

"ulaanbaatar, mongolia" -- 127

Google India:

"ulan bator, mongolia" -- 162

"ulaanbaatar, mongolia" -- 391

Google Pakistan:

"ulan bator, mongolia" -- 4

"ulaanbaatar, mongolia" -- 18

Google, Philippines:

"ulan bator, mongolia" -- 8

"ulaanbaatar, mongolia" -- 182

Keeping in mind that a Google search only gives a rough indication, it can be seen that "Ulaanbaatar" is ahead in almost every English-language Google search page. The exception is South Africa! It's possibly significant that UK results are much more conservative than either the Australian or (especially) the Canadian.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English(search for Ulaanbaatar at [9])and Merriam-Webster ([10]) both use Ulaanbaatar. Why doesnt anyone mention Britannica?? --TheNamer (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Britannica has been brought up in the previous request and it uses "Ulaanbaatar" as well. --Polaron | Talk 12:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Some users, unfortunately, are very insistent in retaining the old, archaic, incorrect name. Vidor (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Some users, dear Vidor, are using English names (if present), this is a rule of WP naming. These users are naming Warszawa - Warsaw, Moskva - Moscow, Roma - Rome. Yes, these names are "old, archaic, incorrect" but these names are English. Lack of geography culture is wery wide in English speaking world and statistic from Google shows this fact. But this discussion topic is not correct name of Mongolian capital, we can not decide this, but the WP article naming. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone actually cared enough to collect and present all the evidence in a form that is easy to understand and verify, then things might go much more smoothly. As it is, the data is sprinkled in bits and pieces over several pages of discussion. Google search results (which don't count as evidence at all) are repeated again and again, and different people seem to draw opposite conclusions based on the same data. Does anyone really expect that this way of discussing will lead anywhere productive? Or do you think it's the opponents' task to prepare an actionable proposal? --Latebird (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide evidence for retaining "Ulan Bator", please? Or are you simply basing your case on inertia?

Bathrobe (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of "my evidence against your evidence" (that attitude seems responsible for much of the chaos in the current debate). The evidence that is necessary to justify a change will present and compare both sides. Only after such a comparison can a sustainable new consensus be reached (remember that move requests in the other direction will follow every few months after that, as is already the case in dewiki). --Latebird (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't following a "my evidence against your evidence" approach. I placed some Google information for reference (usage on different national Googles), but I didn't expect the dismissive comment "Google search results (which don't count as evidence at all) are repeated again and again", which is in the spirit of "my evidence against your (irrelevant) evidence.

Bathrobe (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If it will be more frequent "hunny" insread of honey, "hunny" would be correct? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if it were more frequent; that's how English changes spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My proposal would be to check some recent off-line encyclopedias. But I won't volunteer. Yaan (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt if that would work, though. Time and time again, people mention Britannica (widely perceived as the most scholarly of encyclopaedias.), and people dismissing it. Can the people who oppose the move to Ulaanbaatar give some evidence for doing so???--TheNamer (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Google books, which WP:NCGN prefers over all forms of raw google:
  • [Ulan Bator 1331
  • [Ulanbaataar 829.

We should not be deferring to the official name, which both the Britannica and the US embassy in Ulan Bator are likely to do, for different reasons; we should be using the name most likely to be familiar to gneeral readers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

preliminary summary

Here are all the sources using Ulaanbaatar from past discussion regarding the matter:
The United Nations:

• Unstats
• Un.int
• Cyberschoolbus
• UN Mongolia

International Organizations:

• FIFA
• Peace Corps

USA:

• US State Department - [11]
• CIA World Factbook - [12]
• The White House - [13]

Embassies:

• United States embassy in Mongolia
• The British embassy in Mongolia
• Mongolian embassy in Washington
• Mongolian embassy in London
• Mongolian embassy in Ottawa

In Mongolia:

• UB post newspaper
• Official tourismwebsite
• Ub Hotel,
• Bayangol hotel,
• American School of Ulaanbaatar
• Mongolian Airlines

Other:

• Encyclopedia Brittanica
• Wikitravel
• Wikimedia commons
• World Weather Information Service
• Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (search for Ulaanbaatar at [14])
• Merriam-Webster [15]

(as everyone can see, it is rather a lot...)--TheNamer (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

On WP:NCGN, it states: "Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name."

Encarta uses Ulaanbaatar ([16]), and both Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia (which are both on Answers.com) use Ulaanbaatar (http://www.answers.com/mongolia?cat=travel) --TheNamer (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the embassies, and the UN, fall under Bogomolov's point about diplomatic courtesy; they are essentially repetitions of the official name. We still don't use it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not correct. If it were just a matter of "diplomatic courtesy", the British Embassy in Warsaw would be "British Embassy Warszawa". But it's not. The British Embassy page [17] uses Warsaw, not Warszawa. Similarly for Moscow, Bucharest, etc. So Ulaanbaatar is not merely a diplomatic courtesy. It represents what the British government regards as normal usage.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So at what point does the name become common? --Polaron | Talk 16:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is common when it ceases to trouble a significant proportion of native English speakers as uncalled-for novelty. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

But how do we determine that? What proportion of reliable sources like text books, dictionaries, and other academic sources still use the archaic name? Just because some people grew up knowing the old name, that shouldn't prevent the use of the new name. Even the major paper encyclopedias now use the current name. --Polaron | Talk 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus among editors on what English usage is would be a good start, as WP:NCGN also says. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I just added the sources because I cared enough to collect and present all the evidence in a form that is easy to understand and verify...

WP:NCGN also reccomends using Google Scholar and Google Books (If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted.)

And, when searching on Google Scholar (with "Mongolia" at the end, to roughly filter English results), Ulaanbaatar has 3,440[18], while Ulan bator has 1,890[19] results --> Ulaanbaatar has 1.8 times more results

On Google Books, Ulaanbaatar has 851[20], and Ulan bator has 1062[21]--> Ulan bator has 1.24 times more results

They are both used more or less equally, but if you count the Encyclopedias and the ratios, Ulaanbaatar is the more common--TheNamer (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose changing the article name to Ulaanbaatar. Temur (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like for the first time, the discussion is actually starting to move somewhere. I was previously leaning towards the "diplomatic courtesy" theory with government sources, but Bathrobe raises a valid point comparing the naming of other capitals. I'm still inclined to dismiss sources published in Mongolia, though. @The Namer, what do Google Books/Scholar say if your restrict the publication date to after 1993 as well? What is now missing the most are recent press publications. As a quick first check I searched through Google news and at first it seemed as if Ulaanbaatar won 344/34. Unfortunately, most of those 344 hits come from the Mongolian news agency www.montsame.mn. Filtering those with "-montsame", the result is only 51/34. Yahoo news is even more conservative with 28/34. Are there any better ways to check the printed press? Does anyone have suitable access to Lexis-Nexis? If I haven't overlooked anything important, then that gives us the following summary:

• Encyclopedias -> Ulaanbaatar
• Governments, embassies, UN -> Ulaanbaatar
• Google Books/Scholar -> inconclusive (updated restricting to recent works)
  • Google Scholar -> Ulaanbaatar
  • Google Books -> inconclusive
• Press -> Ulan Bator (almost exclusively)

In other words, we're getting closer to the switch. Any ideas on how to further harden the case? --Latebird (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

From publications 1993 onwards,

Google Scholar -->"Ulan bator mongolia" has 713[22] while "Ulaanbaatar mongolia" has 2150 [23] results.

Google Books-->"ulan bator mongolia" has 647 [24] while "ulaanbaatar mongolia" has 633 [25]

Also, the Library of Congress country studies[26] uses Ulaanbaatar, despite the study material being from 1990 (When Mongolia was still communist) --TheNamer (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Would searching on Wikipedia show editors' preference? If so, Ulaanbaatar gives 314[27], Ulan Bator gives 269 [28] --TheNamer (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Google scholar has somewhat of a problem, because many of the entries for Ulaanbaatar are really citations referencing works published in Mongolia. I hope it's not so many as to significantly distort the result. Apparently, books change slower than scientific papers, which kind of makes sense. I'd think that occurrences in WP are rather random and without any real meaning. --Latebird (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still wondering about the "scholar" approach. Scholars can be very conservative. For example, long after pinyin was almost universal for Chinese, many scholars were still using Wade Giles. And there are still articles on China-related matters in Wikipedia using Wade Giles, obviously written by people relying on such scholarly sources. The world of scholars is often quite removed from the world of actual usage and should be regarded as only one source of reference.

Bathrobe (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons why I'd like to know more about the use in the printed press, which should most closely reflect everyday usage. On the other hand, Mongolian studies have taken quite a leap after the democratic revolution of 1992, among others researching environmental and economic topics. --Latebird (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

On its multilingual timetable, the Incheon (Korea) airport displays "Ulaanbaatar" as the English version of the name. Perhaps, the other International airports do the same. Gantuya eng (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Berlin-Tegel has Ulan Bator, not really sure, though. They do use Ulan Bator online: [29]. Yaan (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The convention appears to favor Ulaanbaatar now. Mongolia is so rarely mentioned that the convention can take less time to change. Not many people have even heard of the place or anything beyond Genghis Khan. Also, shouldn't we be telling people the correct name and not reinforcing an incorrect usage? You can't say "use the convention" when there really isn't any for Ulan Bator since Mongolia is not a major topic, sadly enough. Sometimes I swear some Wikipedians are so stubborn.--Metallurgist (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The only missing piece is to show that the English language printed press is nowaday primarily using the endonym (not just claim it "appears" that way). It is undebated that the exonym used to be the convention for a long time. If you want to argue that this convention has recently changed, you need to provide sources, as with everything in Wikipedia. --Latebird (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

With the recent riots, I think it safe to say that ALL the foreign press used "Ulan Bator". Of course, it could just because they were looking up Wikipedia and decided to go with Wikipedia usage!

Bathrobe (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• They certainly do not, as a look at Google News will show. If you want to argue that this convention has recently changed, you need to provide sources As you well know, this has been proven over and over again, by use of Mongolian English sources, official English sources such as the foreign offices of the United States and Great Britain, and internet searches that show a higher use of the correct spelling than the incorrect, archaic spelling. The only mystery is why this article still has not been moved when "Ulaanbaatar" is both 1) the correct spelling and 1) proven to be in wide usage in the English-speaking world. Vidor (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

How you arrive at your "proof" with Google news is... um... interesting. If you search for entries that use only one or the other spelling (excluding the other with a minus), and also make sure to only get English language results (by adding "Mongolia"), then you'll see quite a different result:

• "ulan bator" -ulaanbaatar mongolia - 2267 - 87%
• ulaanbaatar -"ulan bator" mongolia - 344 - 13%

In clear text: As of July 2008, English language news publications still almost exclusively use "Ulan Bator". Your personal opinion (or mine) on what is "correct" or "archaic" is of no relevance to Wikipedia. --Latebird (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

English language news publications still almost exclusively use "Ulan Bator". This is factually incorrect, and such has been pointed out to you before. Vidor (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

To add some comments, although BBC World News used "Ulan Bator" for the riots/protests, they always use "Ulaanbaatar" for their weather information. If anyone wants sources, look at the weather news on BBC. --Chinneeb_{my talk} 11:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate: a BBC Weather Centre search for Mongolia brings up Ulan Bator, while the actual page says Ulaanbaatar, along with average conditions. Also, just for reference, a Google search for ulaanbaatar site:bbc.co.uk/weather, without omitted results, brings 8 hits; ulan bator site:bbc.co.uk/weather only brings up 2. Note: site:bbc.co.uk/weather, in theory, limits all searches to the BBC Weather Centre. Mouse is back 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Dude! What in the frack are you guys smoking?!?! 'Ulan Bator'?!?! I bet you guys are watching the olympics in 'Peking', too? Get with times, people. The name of this city is NOT 'Ulan Bator'. 96.236.178.113 (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Join the club, man. One day we'll get this article moved. Vidor (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Anonym is too emotional, I guess. Encyclopedia teaches us be not emotional. NOBODY tells that Ulaanbaatar is a wrong name - it is in the practical use. But Ulan Bator is not a wrong name too, you see. As both names are in the article user will find information using both Ulaanbaatar and Ulan Bator. Both names are valid, but only English name is Ulan Bator, isn't it? Ulaanbaatar is Mongolian name latinization, not less not more. It is not any English name, but Mongolian with use of the latin alphabet. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Er... Can we have a vote for the "issue"? --Chinneeb_{my talk} 05:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. --Latebird (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of the evidence points to Ulaanbaatar. But this discussion is going absolutely nowhere, so lets just see what users think. Plus, I'm not saying that the results of the vote are going to decide whether or not to move the page to its rightful place. --Chinneeb_{my talk} 08:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, a 16-year-old Thai student has moved it for us! So much for discussion and dispute! Bathrobe (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is still no evidence backing Ulan Bator. I don't understand you guys. People who support Ulaanbaatar have provided tons of sources, while the opposing side doesn't produce single link which points out that Ulaanbaatar should be ruled out. --GenuineMongol (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ulaanbaatar, as a valid Mongolian name transliteration, does not need any support - it exists. But English WikiPedia is not Mongolian, so it preferres traditional English name (also valid - look mass media reports statistics of July 1 events: Ulan Bator was much more frequent). Ulan Bator name is present in English, when it will be less frequent - ok, Ulaanbaatar will be the best name to this article. We are not deciding the Mongolian capital right name - it is an article naming problem, not more. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I said "People who support Ulaanbaatar (as an English proper name) have provided tons of sources". I am involved in Mongolian related articles of the English Wikipedia too. So, please don't point to my origin. Why should we assign a different name to a city while there are other printed Encyclopedias and documents produced by the Governments of English-speaking countries that use Ulaanbaatar as the name for the capital of Mongolia? We will only help the "good old" name of Ulaanbaatar be used more widely if we keep/protect this Russian originated name in Wikipedia. --GenuineMongol (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"help the "good old" name of Ulaanbaatar be used more widely" is specifically NOT the goal of Wikipedia. Wikipedia reflects the use in the most widely publicised native English language media today. Evidence presented with an intention to prove the opposite has turned out inconclusive at best. --Latebird (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Who points to your origin? I'm not native English speaker, your English is better, dear GenuineMongol. But respecting of traditional English names is an En:Wiki rule, because it is Enlish language Wiki. In de:Wiki is Ulaanbaatar and what? From your point of view Ulan Bator is not good old English name? Why Mongolia name you don't want change to Mongol Uls? "Ulan Bator" was a correct transliteration of the correct Russian transcription of Mongolian name. It is no political questions in this case, I hope. It is fact, Ulan Bator name was introduced after Mongolian capital was renamed, you see. The strong Soviet (or Russian) influence was in Mongolia since 1921.

As you know, dear GenuineMongol, it is not any task of Wiki to change the world. It is an encyclopedia, it reflects our world and (as every encyclopedia) is conservative. And it is the principle of Wiki, indeed. We never ignore presence in the various sources "Ulaanbaatar" name version. It is not a question of correct city name, but article naming, you see. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand you guys. People who support Ulaanbaatar have provided tons of sources, while the opposing side doesn't produce single link which points out that Ulaanbaatar should be ruled out. Well said. It really is frustrating. "Ulaanbaatar" is both 1) the correct transliteration of the Mongolian name and 2) in widespread use. Therefore, it should be the name of the article. Yet somehow it is not, due to some peculiar Wikipedia disease that leads people to argue for the sun rising in the west. Hopefully one day the weight of common sense will overwhelm this strange determination to hang on to the old fashioned, archaic spelling. Vidor (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The use pattern in news sources is quite obvious. In quiet times, when there is nothing to report and only niche publications talk about Mongolia, the use between Ulan Bator and Ulaanbaatar is quite balanced. But as soon as there are newsworthy events, and the big guys (international news agencies etc.) jump in, the scales get tipped very heavily towards Ulan Bator (evidence given further above). And whether we like it or not, it is the big guys, the highly notable mass media, who define contemporary common use. If you can convince AP, CNN, and similar outlets to use Ulaanbaatar more often, then Wikipedia will follow. --Latebird (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

pictures

All the pictures seem to convey a message that Ulaanbaatar is some sleepy small town in the middle of nowhere - no people to be seen, almost no traffic etc. While the "middle of nowhere" can be justified, the sleepy is rather wrong. Is there a way we can have some traffic jam pics, or some with more than one or two pedestrians? Yaan (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's sleepy. Traffic jam happens not because they are busy, but because they all sleep before 12:00 and then all go out to drive without serious purposes. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gantuya eng (talk • contribs)

Dead links

Removed dead links. Bummer. Vidor (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Ulan Bator Metro : Is it a joke ?

There is a website, ulaanbaator.narod.ru, who exists from 2002 or more, who talks about the subway of these city. Subway that in facts it don't exists... Or not ? I've founded website in 2002 taking it as a real fact but some years later, i don't remember where, i've read that there is only a joke. A good-made joke :-) . I can suppose it is, cause i'ven't found no page on en.wiki about these subway, and also nowere excepted that link. Regarding photos i can effectively observe that they are falses, excepted the photo of Ulaanbaatar railway station of MTZ (Mongol National Railway). Who knows more about this joke ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.15.37 (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke, hoax, or whatever you want to call it. There's no Metro in UB. But I don't know anything more about that site. Someone's idea of fun, I guess.

Bathrobe (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanx. I've supposed, also lookin' at the photomontage of first photo (Kosmonavt Uuly station). Wow ! 6 years of hoax :-) --87.6.195.227 (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image needs replacement

Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:IMGP0117.JPG, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

• Also Image:IMGP0119.JPG

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)