Talk:Khadjibey

Requested move 2 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Khadzhibey → Khadjibey – Seems like preferred English spelling in wikipedia. In any case "dzh" is transliteration from Russian, ie indirect borrowing -M.Altenmann >t 22:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC). -M.Altenmann >t 22:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• The Kh is also a borrowing from Russian and the proposed dj appears to be from French. How about some references to sources? —  AjaxSmack  02:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

  The 'kh" is not borrowing from Russian. It is a standard linguistic convention for a particular sound different from what 'h' is in English. I was saying that '-dzhi-' is an unnecessary indirect rendering via Russian: '-ci-' ->'-джи-' -> 'dzhi'. Whereas '-ji-' is direct and pretty darn close rendering into English, like in 'jinni'/'djinni'. In case of khadjibey, an extra 'd' prevents the misprunouncing of the previous 'a' as 'ay' ('catnip' vs 'cake'). As for references, this is a name of low notability: google gives only 8K hits for 'Khadjibey' 2H hits for 'Khadzhibey'; 'google books' gives both below 500 hits, with vast majority being Russian-authored sources which use, of course, 'dzh'. As as far as I remember, in such cases of little notability of a geographic location, our preferences favor the standard phonetization into English, which would be 'Khadjibey'. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  Interesting premise about the suitability of dj over j but it's original research. Looking at Google Books with Wikipedia derived sources removed, I get 34 hits for "Khadjibey", 29 hits for "Khadzhibey" and 18 hits for "Khajibey". (Both "Hajibey" and "Hacibey" get far more but most are false positives.) Of these, only one, "Khadzhibey", is a systematic transcription of the Russian Хаджибей that matches that called for in WP:RUS as well as the name of the Khadzhibey Estuary. That combined with the admonition of WP:TITLECHANGES ("If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.") lead me to... AjaxSmack  22:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  As I explained above, google test is inapplicable in cases of rare things. In addition, you have to filter out the cases where the text is actually about the fortress and take into an account that the majority of Russian-originated texts don't follow English transliteration. - üser:Altenmann >t 21:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• ...Oppose per WP:RUS and WP:TITLECHANGES. See details in my comments above. —  AjaxSmack  22:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • TITLECHANGES inapplicable. I created it days ago. RUS inapplicable, because the article is about Turkish fortress, so its Russian name of little relevance. - üser:Altenmann >t 21:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I didn't notice you had just created it. In that case, I would just say move it where you want and put the burden of moving it back to Khadzhibey on others if they wish. (I notice strangely that I created the redirect at Khadjibey over nine years ago; I sure don't remember that one.) However, since you asked for input...I agree that the Google test is "inapplicable in cases of rare things" and with the mixed usage, I still say go with a standard transcription, i.e either Khadzhibey or Hacıbey, and avoid an ad hoc spelling. —  AjaxSmack  03:00, 17 August 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.