Talk:Uezd

I’m proposing renaming every article about an uezd, to use the spelling from the renamed main article. You can see the rationale for the successful move in talk:Uezd#Requested move 12 July 2021, above. There are many potentially affected articles, ranging from Akhtyrka Uyezd → Akhtyrka Uezd, to Zangezursky Uyezd → Zangezursky Uezd. If successful, the enclosing category names would follow. See:

• List of uyezds of the Russian Empire
• Category:Uyezds of the Russian Empire

(Do I need to post a note on every single article?) —Michael Z. 22:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have no preference and will use whatever version is agreed on, though should note "uyezd" is probably a more correct transliteration. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  See the “e” row in the big table in Romanization of Russian, and Google Books Ngram. uezd is according to the majority of English-language and international systems, especially the the ALA-LC[3] and “modified Library of Congress system,” that many or most academic sources use, as well as the UN (GOST 1983) system originating in Russia.[4] uyezd is according to BGN/PCGN romanization (1947),[5] which is less common and intended for geographical names. There’s also our essay WP:RUS, which WP:original research and corresponds to no standard, and therefore defective because it is literally designed to render results that don’t conform to the WP:CRITERIA. —Michael Z. 23:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per nom. The article titles should match whatever the consensus is on the spelling of the word; if that consensus is uezd, the pages in question should reflect that. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 02:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, for the consistency, per nom. Alaexis_¿question? 06:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Mzajac: should we leave the original Russian adjective form (Zangezursky Uezd) or move to noun-adjunct English form (Zangezur Uezd)? There's currently a mess, judging from the contents of this page, so it would not hurt to agree things in advance so that we do not move dozens of pages twice. No such user (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Great question. Sounds like it might be a separate project to me. I wonder if there’s someone who has worked on a lot of these? Right now I don’t know whether they can all be treated consistently or not. —Michael Z. 14:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mzajac: & @No such user:, I thought I would share with you a table I have compiled which may assist in determining the style of the article name for the uezds: https://prnt.sc/23dl7k4 For example, the table focuses on the toponyms of the Erivan Governorate, in which you can see I have written the names of the uezds in modern Russian, followed by a transliteration using the modified Library of Congress Romanisation guide for Russian (as suggested by Mzajac), followed by the eponym of the district in Russian and the latter's transliteration, representing what the district in question is named for (e.g. city of Alexandropol is the eponym of the Alexandropol Uezd). Next, I used Google Ngram to compare the variants of the name and determine the most frequently used version in English sources, which indicated a preference for the noun-adjunct rather than adjective form of the district names. As a bonus, in case it is helpful, I have also included the endonyms of the eponym, to correspond to whichever country controls most of the area in the present-day (e.g. most of the Nakhichevan Uyezd is part of Azerbaijan, hence the Azerbaijani toponym). In any case regarding the grammatical structure of the district names, I'd like to support the proposal to rename "Uyezd" articles to "uezd" due to its wider use in English academia. Cheers. Nunuxxx (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow. Thank you. We need to have a conversation about standard romanization of Russian WP:RUS and Cyrillic more generally, and this kind of information would be very helpful. —Michael Z. 15:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Remember, there’s WP:no deadline. I see this request as ratifying the application of the main article title to the individual articles, and agreeing on a convention to follow. If we choose to proceed, then whether all of the affected articles get renamed in a day or in the long run would remain to be seen. And eventually links and spellings in other articles will get updated. No need to panic. —Michael Z. 14:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's uyezd -> WP:RUS.--Darwinek (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The WP:COMMONNAME is uezd, so it trumps WP:RUS; see the recent move discussion, above. Anyway, WP:RUS is an essay, not a guideline, and it is original research based on some Wikipedians’ personal preferences and corresponds to no romanization standard. The i-based modified LOC romanization (iu, ia) is much more common in academic and popular-academic sources than the y-based BGN/PCGN (yu, ya), &c, so the derived WP:RUS is not a good choice. —Michael Z. 22:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on the basis of WP:AT and WP:COMMONNAME, as evidenced by Mzajac's extensive linked WP:SET results above. According to WP:AT, under 6.1, "Foreign names and Anglicization" section:

- “Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be Romanized. Established systematic Romanizations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic (as with Tchaikovsky and Chiang Kai-shek).”

- “In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader.”

Seeing as "uezd" is used 1.8-2.1 times more than the next closest result through English-language sources, I don't see why it should not prevail over the WP:RUS variant which exists for when there isn't an English common name, which isn't the case here. Nunuxxx (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]