Talk:Nagatinsky Zaton District

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Nagatinsky zaton District → Nagatinsky Zaton District – mostly because "X y Z" (Capitalized - non-capitalized - capitalized) is abnormal capitalization scheme for similar proper names in English.

We have already discussed the ussue with Ezhiki at User talk:Ezhiki#Nagatinsky Zaton, but without success in determining the right approach. Ezhiki's main and quite valid argument is that in the official laws of Moscow the second part of the district's name is spelled in lowercase in Russian language. However:

• 1) Some official cites of the district, such as this one or other official Moscow cites such as this prefer fully capitalized spelling, while these same cites and other official and non-official cites freely use both capitalized and non-capitalized version, often on the same page like here.
• 2) Russian Wikipedia uses the fully capitalized version, ru:Нагатинский Затон (район Москвы).
• 3) Brief analysis of the google search results gives impression that the capitalized version is more popular both in Russian and English.
• 4) "Zaton" is a hydronym descriptor in Russian, meaning simultaneously boatyard and backwater. For English hydronyms or port names (unlike Russian ones) the general practice is to capitalize the descriptor in postposition, so Nagatinsky Zaton as a part of the Moscow River should be capitalized, but then why not capitalize Nagatinsky Zaton District?
• 5) And finally, I repeat, it is abnormal for an English proper name to be non-capitalized or to have non-capitalized descriptor (zaton) before capitalized one (District, which is by the way "район" in Russian, and is not capitalized in Russian texts). Relisting see below Andrewa (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC) GreyHood ^Talk 17:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Oppose. The current title is a result of (quite unambiguous) application of our own policies and guidelines. WP:CAPS, our guideline dealing with capitalization of words in article titles, states that [f]or multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence (emphasis mine—Ë). Now, how do we know whether the proper noun in this particular title would always occur capitalized? Normally, we would look at the name commonly used in English to refer to the concept, and use the capitalization that name uses. In this case, however, no commonly used English name exists—something the nominator does not seem to contest. In absence of a common English name, the policy we follow in WP:UE, which states that [i]f there are too few English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on). This means that we are supposed to follow the convention of the Russian language; i.e., use the official Russian name. The official Russian name does not capitalize "zaton", hence we do not capitalize it either (although we transliterate it per the requirements of that same WP:UE). The word "district" is not a part of the proper name; it is a descriptor establishing the entity type. Whether the descriptor is capitalized or not is determined by the applicable guidelines, previous consensus, or established practices. Since for the Russian districts the "District" descriptor is always capitalized, it is capitalized here as well, resulting in output that uses mixed caps.
   On other points: #1, the official name of a place in Moscow is not determined by what the official website uses but by the law on the administrative-territorial divisions of Moscow (which the official website is supposed to follow). That the website uses the spelling which is wrong is not a good rationale for us to do the same, especially when we 100% know that it's wrong. #2, we don't care one bit what the Russian Wikipedia uses—they have their own guidelines, and they don't usually match ours. They have their own share of mistakes, too. #3, brief analysis of the google results is normally used to establish common spelling, and in this case the results only show that no common English spelling exists, so we discard them altogether and use other methods (i.e., WP:UE). #4, the only thing that matters is that "zaton" is a part of the proper name; we should deal with it accordingly. If it were a descriptor (used in the title of an article about the part of the Moskva River, to borrow the nominator's example), it's quite possible that we would have dealt with it differently—that is a normal practice and nothing to be surprised about. #5, "zaton" here is not a designator; it is a part of the proper name. The only designator in this title is "District", and it is already capitalized. Note that it is only capitalized because Wikipedians previously agreed that this kind of designators should normally be capitalized; there is no such agreement on making exceptions to the capitalization of parts of proper names just to make them "fit" someone's conception of normalcy, which is what this nomination is trying to do despite all of the policies and guidelines pointing to the contrary.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 15, 2011; 19:20 (UTC)

If a number of Wikipedian guidelines are good one by one, but in combination provide a strange-looking result not fitting into English language naming system, it is not the reason to uphold these guidelines at whatever cost. We should not override the general rules of the language in favor of wikiguidelines (and certainly not in favor of their rare extraordinary effects). Could you provide an example of well-established and non-controversial "X y Z"-capitalized place name in English (and preferably even "X y District" example, and even more preferably the example where the second item would be, originally, hydronym designator)? And, in fact, better to provide many such examples to show that it is a normal practice rather than few exceptions.

If you agree that "zaton" here is not a designator; it is a part of the proper name than why this particular type of proper name should not be capitalized in English, while proper names are typically capitalized (Proper name#Capitalization)? According to hydronym naming scheme it should be fully capitalized, and why there is any sense in treating it differently when a part of the district name, especially when the issue is so small as capitalization, is not clear. GreyHood ^Talk 19:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again you are referring to some non-existent "English language naming system" and "general rules of the language". Once again I point out that there is no such system. There are only style guides and the rules Wikipedians have agreed on. Capitalization in particular is strictly a style issue, and in this particular case the style issue interferes with accuracy. In my book, accuracy wins every time!

On your other point, I do agree that "zaton" in the name of this district is not a designator; it is a part of the proper name. I have already explained why it should not be capitalized—since there is no common English name for this district, our only choice is to romanize the official Russian name, in which "zaton" is not capitalized. Capitalization choice is always retained during romanization. Also, just because proper names are typically capitalized does not mean they are always capitalized. It seems abundantly clear that the case we have here is anything but typical.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2011; 14:04 (UTC)

Guidelines seem not to say directly that the "Capitalization choice is always retained during romanization". Non-capitalizing a part of a proper name is not typical in English. Non-capitalizing before a capitalized descriptor is not typical in utmost degree (could you give examples of such usage?). GreyHood ^Talk 17:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, of course they don't say that; it is rather obvious :) I've never seen an English text where capitalization would be altered in a name that is explicitly romanized. Capitalization may occasionally differ when there is a different common English name to match the Russian name, but in those cases no claim is made that the result is a "romanization". Since there is no common English name of this district, we use the romanization of the official name, and if a part of that name is not capitalized, then neither is the romanization.

Regarding what's "typical", I would myself capitalize all parts of proper names if there is no source confirming 100% which variant is correct (in other words, when in doubt, always capitalize). In this case, however, we do know 100% which variant is correct/official, so there is no justification whatsoever to depart from it. Even if the original is indeed grammatically wrong, the romanization simply conveys that state. We are not in a position to fix what we think are mistakes in the sources. We are here to report the exiting state of the matter.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2011; 17:31 (UTC)

What is not said directly is not obvious. And we can report the exiting state of the matter in the official Russian documents without naming the article contrary to normal English practice. Do you agree that the "X y District" capitalization is not normal in English? GreyHood ^Talk 18:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree it is not typical (in a sense this term is employed in Proper name#Capitalization), but hardly so abnormal to worry about. In this particular case, the capitalization of the original name is not "normal" either—a fact that the romanization also conveys. If the official name were misspelled as "Ногатинский", we'd have this article under "Nogatinsky"—correcting it would be a very wrong thing to do. As long as an explanation is provided or can easily be inferred, there is no problem. I'd point out once again that accuracy/verifiability is more important than the matters of style, which often tend to be arbitrary anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2011; 19:21 (UTC)

So you agree that it is not normal capitalisation sequence. Accuracy/verifiability is relevant to Russian sources and names here. How we transliterate them is a different question. GreyHood ^Talk 15:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I explicitly do not agree that is is not normal capitalization. I only agree that it is not typical, and point out that it is not typical for a good reason. How to transliterate, on the other hand, is indeed a different issue, but I do not know of any romanization/transliteration system which would contain provisions for changing capitalization in ways you are suggesting. Do you?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 17, 2011; 15:26 (UTC)

This reason is a peculiar effect produced by several guidelines and conventions together (and ignoring the normal rules of both Russian and English). Perhaps we better should fix those guidelines or interpret them in favour of the English language? As for the transliteration systems, remember that we have to translate and capitalize "район" into District, which produces most of the problem. GreyHood ^Talk 17:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I've just realised the scale of what we have on the plate %). Here is a related discussion in the Russian wiki, which lasts for some 4 months. They discuss the Russian naming of Maryina roshcha District there and they propose to move ru:Марьина Роща (район Москвы) to ru:Марьина роща (район Москвы). The majority of editors there seem to agree that non-capitalized version is not only against the Wikipedia naming conventions, but against the rules of the Russian language in general where both parts of a complex location name are normally capitalized. Moscow officials are just not literate enough and whether their official documents should override the rules of both Russian and English language, is a question. GreyHood ^Talk 12:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, and of course it is only up to them, the Russian Wikipedians, to mend this great injustice and to make Russia literate once again! We, of course, should follow their guiding light!</sarcasm> Seriously, since when is Wikipedia in business of correcting the mistakes of others? We are supposed to report the existing state of the matters, not criticize it or mend it. If you find a source discussing the official name and pointing out how it is against the rules of the language (Russian or English), by all means add it, but until the official name is changed, we should be reporting what it actually is, not what we want it to be or what we think it should be. Once you start deciding what is correct and what isn't while disregarding solid evidence at the same time, that's a slippery slope you are on, my friend. —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2011; 14:04 (UTC)

Well, they cite the orthographic dictionary of the Russian Academy of Sciences which supports the capitalized version. And when it comes to language issues, I think Russian academic scholars are better experts than Moscow officials. GreyHood ^Talk 17:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how you go about fixing what you think is a grammatical error in the source; the point is that you are still trying to fix what you are not supposed to. If the capitalization of the name is officially changed by the Moscow authorities, we will change it here as well. Until then, we are supposed to use what the source uses, and the source uses "zaton" with a lower-case "z". Our titles are not supposed to be grammatically correct for the sake of being grammatically correct; they are supposed to represent reality. Verifiability, not truth.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2011; 17:31 (UTC)

Even if the reality is ungrammatical in some Russian documents (not all) it is not a reason to translate this ungrammaticality into English and get even more ungrammatical capitalization sequence as a result. Why not just report the name of the district in Russian in the body of the article but name it according to English language rules? GreyHood ^Talk 17:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

But that's exactly the reason! You can easily verify this ungrammatical (if it indeed turns out to be ungrammatical) variant. The "corrected" version, or the other hand, can only be "verified" by completely ignoring what the primary source says and disregarding the nature of the relation between the primary source and the secondary sources, which makes this approach a textbook definition of original research (and bias!). And if we retain the lower case in Russian, but not in English, that's even worse! How's the reader supposed to figure out why that is and which one is correct?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2011; 18:13 (UTC)

The reader is supposed to verify it through references, of course. And I suppose the reader is more likely to start figuring out why that is capitalized in so weird way in English rather than to verify the capitalization in Russian. GreyHood ^Talk 18:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the reader is supposed to verify it through references, but you are sidetracking the argument—regardless of what the readers do (or are supposed to do), it is us, the Wikipedians, who are supposed to make sure that the things we say match the things the sources say. If the article is moved to a title with "zaton" capitalized, we'll have the lead say something not supported by the source—it's as simple as that. I understand how ignoring this point would be easy and how its impact on the grand scale of things is very minor, but that still doesn't make the approach right. Sacrificing facts, no matter how minor, on the altar of "style" is never right.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2011; 19:21 (UTC)

If we transliterate the name and capitalize it according to normal English practice, and at the same time give the non-capitalized name in Russian, than we will not sacrifice facts nor the rules of English. Fact is that it is officially named "Нагатинский затон", but it is not a fact that it should be titled "Nagatinsky zaton District" in English, it's just our choice. GreyHood ^Talk 15:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed our choice, but one that's dictated by our own guidelines. As I demonstrated above, there is nothing in the guidelines that would support changing the capitalization the way you are suggesting. We could do it anyway, but that would be picking style over accuracy, and you still haven't addressed why that would be a worthy sacrifice.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 17, 2011; 15:26 (UTC)

Basically you support the accuracy of guidelines implemention here, rather than the accuracy of facts. If the guidelines produce bad stylistic and grammatical effects without significant positive effects for the real world accuracy, than we better should fix the guidelines. GreyHood ^Talk 17:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that "zaton" is spelled with a lower-case "z" (and that it is not typical even in original Russian)—something that's retained after the guidelines are properly followed. If anything, the current title is more accurate than the proposed one. The stylistic concerns are always a secondary matter and at any rate aren't even as bad as you are trying to portray them. As for changing the guidelines, that, of course, is always an option to consider, but it should be discussed using the appropriate venues, not here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2011; 20:40 (UTC)

• Support but relisting in the hope others will take the time to get involved. So far we just have the two contributors, and we need others to help them solve this. And it's complex. I think I see both valid and invalid arguments on both sides, and on balance support a move. Very interested in other views. I think both contributors also deserve a commendation for the conduct of the discussion so far. Andrewa (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

  I'd say we should both be whacked for wasting time over the capitalization of one letter, but thanks for getting involved :) Other opinions are indeed needed, because the two of us have reached the impasse. May I ask why you are leaning to support and which portions of our arguments you see as invalid? Thanks again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 29, 2011; 14:05 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.