Talk:Lobachevskiy (crater)

(Spelling)

Isn't the name of this article spelled wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSix (talk • contribs) 08:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. The USGS Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature (see link in article) gives the name as Lobachevskiy, and that seems to be a pretty definitive source. Scog (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

However, the crater is named after Lobachevsky - a mathematician. Surely the crater's name would be the same as the individual it is named for? Additionally, in the source listed in the article - http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1971SSRv...12..136M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf - the name is correctly spelled as Lobachevsky.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSix (talk • contribs) 18:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

   "Surely"? Well, maybe except that the correct spelling is Лобачевский, and it's not unusual for different disciplines to use different transliterations. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the astronomers of the world have accepted a view probably popular among Russians that the transliteration popular in US is an ignorant one that fails to respect the distinction between the sound of ий and that of и!
--Jerzy•t 05:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is best to defer to IAU for names for purposes of wikipedia. Most other crater names ending in "-sky" are spelled "-skiy" so it is probably best to leave it alone. Jstuby (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

qualifier

(cur | prev) 05:07, 12 February 2014‎ Jerzy (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (1,872 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Jerzy moved page Lobachevskiy (crater) to Lobachevskiy: elim redundant qualifier on article (keep as Rdr)) (undo | thank)

I argue that "(crater)" is not a redundant qualifier. This article refers to the crater on the moon. The default "Lobachevskiy" or "Lobachevsky" should redirect to the eponym Nikolai Lobachevsky. I suggest moving it back to Lobachevskiy (crater). Jstuby (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Certainly should be moved back. But that isn't a unique surname. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)