Talk:Ulaanbaatar

Archives

• 2005 - 2007
• 2008

Spelling "Ulaanbaatar"

Another year and another page on the spelling. Another piece of evidence for the transliteration "Ulaanbaatar": Wikimedia Commons. Also, Wikitravel. Vidor (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

But BBC and EuroNews use Ulan Bator. These sources are more relevant than wikitravel, I guess.Bogomolov.PL (talk)

And CNN uses Ulaanbaatar. --GenuineMongol (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've mentioned BBC as more relevant than Wikitravel. Yes, inconsistency in Ulan Bator naming exists. But Poles don't want Warsaw be renamed in English. And Russians - Moscow, Italians - Rome. More? Athens, Copenhagen, Cairo. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What the Commons and Wikitravel use is entirely irrelevant, as they don't have the goal of representing most common English language use. The various *.cnn.com sites use both, but Ulan Bator quite a bit more often. --Latebird (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that CNN has stopped using Ulan Bator in its news articles since about 2005. If you search both Ulan Bator and Ulaanbaatar in CNN news, then you will see that Ulaanbaatar has been consistently used in their news since 2005.--GenuineMongol (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

For those not familiar with the way this topic is artificially being kept alive, here's the history of previous discussions:

• Talk:Ulan Bator/Archive 01#Requested move - October 2006 - move in the other direction, supported almost unanimously.
• Talk:Ulan Bator/Archive 01#Ulaanbaatar Preference - March 2007
• Talk:Ulan Bator/Archive 01#Page name - 4 July 2007
• Talk:Ulan Bator/Archive 02#It should be Ulaanbaatar - February 2008
• Talk:Ulan Bator/Archive 02#The Name - April 2008 (almost continuously to January 2009)

In all of those discussions over more than two years now, it could not be shown that the most common use in English language media has shifted to Ulaanbaatar yet. Until this has changed out there in the real world, consensus here is also very unlikely to change. --Latebird (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I wish I'd been on Wikipedia in October 2006 to talk some sense into people. What the most recent discussions have demonstrated, of course, is that not only is "Ulaanbaatar" the correct transliteration, which is inarguable, but it is in widespread use all over English-speaking media, from Mongolian English sources to the U.S. State Department to CNN to Wikitravel. Vidor (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikitravel nature makes it an encyclopedically not relevant source. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

One more note... US Embassy uses Ulaanbaatar on their site. Does anyone actually still think Ulan Bator is more appropriate? Can we change it already? Getting a bit ridiculous... Seems pretty obvious especially given its the closest transliteration from the _current_ spelling in Mongolian 20:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

US Embassy decides? I don't know this kind of Wiki rule. But it is natural to use Mongolian name in Mongolia. But the rest of the world is far from Mongolia.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is far from Mongolia? GenuineMongol (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

English speaking countries (USA, Britain, Australia, Canada etc.). Close to Mongolia are China and Russia only, isn't it? Seoul is 2000 km from UB (strait line). It is like Copenhagen-Tunis distance. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The world is getting smaller thanks to the advances in technology, especially in ICT. The English language is replacing the Russian language as the second language in Mongolia. The number of English-speaking residents is increasing year by year. So, Mongolia can't be considered an outback today.GenuineMongol (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about difference: English speakers in Mongolia and out. Yes, English replaced Russian in Mongolia (this is completely natural, I see), but demographically English speakers in Mongolia will be a minority for the English speakers in the rest of the world, isn't it? And native English speakers are too far from Mongolia, Korea or Japan. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Warming up old arguments

Ulaanbaatar has 1,020,000 results in Google, ulan bator only 541,000 and that even includes all the wikipedia sites. What more prove do you need that Ulaanbaatar is the most common spelling? Yes we can. Let's change this name. Inmongolia (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and Yahoo results are 3.8 M for Ulaanbaatar and 2.19 M for Ulan Bator. Ulan Bator is no longer used dominantly. GenuineMongol (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I narrowed the search in Google and found out that Ulaanbaatar has 11200 results among .uk and English language only websites, while Ulan Bator has 8160 results only among .uk and English language only websites. No native English speakers are opposing this change, if you see the discussion history. Only some Russian or German speakers are involved in the discussion. --GenuineMongol (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And what will improve if you move it to "Ulaanbaatar"? Gantuya eng (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It will improve the consistency of the name. Otherwise, some pages have Ulaanbaatar, while some pages have Ulan Bator within Wikipedia. We need to update the Wikipedia along with the current trend. Please explain what will improve if we retain "Ulan Bator"? GenuineMongol (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why not make them all "Ulan Bator" rather than "Ulaanbaatar"? Gantuya eng (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not make them all "Ulaanbaatar"?GenuineMongol (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the advantage of "Ulaanbaatar" before "Ulan Bator"? Gantuya eng (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the advantage of "Ulan Bator" before "Ulaanbaatar"?GenuineMongol (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The people still opposing the change at this time appear to be those most familiar with Wikipedia policy, no matter their native tongue. Those policies ask for reliable, published, and preferrably printed sources to document the most prominent use. Neither "advantages", "disadvantages", nor google results have any relevance to the question. --Latebird (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have got a printed copy of Britannica and it says "Ulaanbaatar". Why isn't it considered a reliable source?GenuineMongol (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright then go ahead and move. Gantuya eng (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

One source (even several individual sources) is not enough to demonstrate "most common use". Please carefully read all the previous discussions about the topic. You are just warming up old arguments that have already been rejected repeatedly. --Latebird (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So, why did you choose Ulan Bator first when you opened this page? How did you prove that Ulan Bator was the most commonly used version? How, when, and what sources can you show me? Please provide printed sources, not only several, but thousands please. GenuineMongol (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As it was a traditional English name. In Mongolia is in use transliteration only, so derived from Russian traditional English name was created before Cyrillic Улаанбаатар (and its latinization) was established. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So what? Peking was a traditional English name for Beijing even before Ulan Bator was created. Beijing is used in Wikipedia as the primary name for the city.GenuineMongol (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So what? Mongolia is not a China part. When were 2008 riots a lot of international and local English speaking media were reporting about Ulan Bator but not Ulaanbaatar only. Simple googling is not stronger argument than media (agencies, newspapers and magazines) usage. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to the double standards used in Wikipedia when I talked about Beijing. I am not saying a word about Mongolia being a part of China. Please don't insult me!!!!!!--GenuineMongol (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

He says Mongolia isN"T part of China and therefore it's not necessary to draw a parallel with Beijing. I don't see anything insulting in it. Gantuya eng (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly demonstrated in previous discussions, specialised publications (closely related to Mongolia) will often use Ulaanbaater, while English language mass media keep using primarily Ulan Bator. This is reflected even in results on news.google.com. In quiet times, when only niche publications write about Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar is ahead. When something interesing happens (like the riots in 2009) and the big guys (CNN, AP, etc.) chime in, the scales get immediately tipped in favour of Ulan Bator. And it's the big guys who define "most common use". The situation of cities in other countries (also repeatedly discussed) is inherently different, and cannot serve as a meaningful comparison. --Latebird (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

To GenuineMongol. Sorry, but I didn't want to insult you, I just declared that situation with Mongolian capital is different. Chinese government officially claimed that only respectable for China is a native Chinese spelling, not a colonialists name. Mongolian government never issued such kind of declarations as Mongolia was independent all the period when actual capital name exists. English speaking countries never tried to invide or rule Mongolia so it was no such kind of objections in Mongolia. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Ulaanbaatar" is wrong too

"Ulaanbaatar" is wrong too. It should be Ulaganbagator". I appreciate the Russian spelling for keeping the "o". Gantuya eng (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the traditional Mongolian spelling, it is "Ulaganbagatur", but not your Russian "o". --GenuineMongol (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly is the difference? I, btw., prefer some form of 'γ' or 'gh' for the back [masculine?] 'g'. Yaan (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you were a bit closer to your native language and culture, you would realise that there's no difference between U and O in the Classical Alphabet. Gantuya eng (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Against all odds, I'm starting to appreciate the entertainment value of this topic... ;-) --Latebird (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Gantuya eng (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

But pronunciation of the last vowel in the name is not "o", but "u". Transliteration is mostly based on pronunciation.--GenuineMongol (talk) 06:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Transliteration as "o" also possible. I was taught it's "o" in my childhood. Only later, on the 9th grade I saw it also can be interpreted as 'U'. After all, how do you know the pronunciation of the blurred vowel. We don't know the pronunciation of blurred vowel and spend all school years learning by heart rules for choosing a blurred vowel. That's because those are blurred vowels and nobody knows there exact pronunciation. In Mongolian Cyrillic, they use "egchig zohitsoh yos" (vowel harmony rule), in Kazakh Cyrillic they use 'ы' for masculine and 'i' for feminine blurred vowels, in Kirghiz Cyrillic they use 'у' for blurred vowels. It's only symbolic and the pronunciation is always unclear. Gantuya eng (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This naming thing is really starting to bug me. If I offer my opinion, the name Ulaanbaatar is in itself wrong. For a country which is supposedly "democratic", to have a capital called "Red hero" is pathetic. It should have always been Өргөө or Нийслэл хүрээ, or even Хархорин. But not only Mongolia, other Mongolic places under Soviet rule also got their capitals named after f***ing communism. Ulan-Ude in Buryat Republic, and Kyzyl in Tuva are good examples. The 1990 revolution didnt do everything right. If they had done it right, they would have destroyed the communist party and maybe the real democrats would have wiped communism permanently from Mongolia (with the stupid Red Hero naming too). Any opinions? --Chinneeb_{my talk} 15:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This kind of behaviour (to rename everything) looks like not too democratic. Democracy is a pluralism, isn't it? Mongolia has its own history and Mongolian capital name is this history sign. French revolution was bloody, but the Revolution day is main French National holyday. And La Marseillaise is national anthem.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chinneeb. The name of the city should have been changed in the 1990ties. But the Mongolian communist party (Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party) is still in power, so they would not want to change it. Bogomolov, please don't be too sensitive to any criticism of communism or the former Soviet Union. Besides, your example is not appropriate. To many Mongolians, the name of the city reminds the communist period of Mongolia, when it was under the foreign (Soviet) rule, whereas La Marseillaise was sung by citizens of independent France. --GenuineMongol (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, I don't like the current name of the city too, but Wikipedia is not the Parliament to discuss the name of the city.

I think Bogomolov's example brought from France is quite appropriate. Mongolia recently reworded her anthem changing the beautiful word "revolutionary nation" into a clumsy word "independent nation". The latter feels like we are afraid that our independence is doubted and are trying to reconfirm it. "revolutionary" meant we DO decide our fate ourselves, we are free to do revolutions in our own country (3 revolutions!!!), because we are truly independent. So while France sings the revolutionary song La Marseillaise, why were we shy of the word "revolutionary" in our anthem? Gantuya eng (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, your talk is off-off-off-topic. --GenuineMongol (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

To GenuineMongol. I am very sensitive to every effort to erase a historical memory, you see. I never protected both communism and Soviet Union: you, my dear collegue, has no evidence of my activity in this field. Even more - I think a politically motivated disputes are very dangerous for our Wiki. Our collegue Chinneeb asked for "any opinions". So my opinion is "any" for you. Our collegue Gantuya eng and me edited Mongolia article in Russian Wiki adding information about Choibalsan time purges.

It is not a good idea to use Wiki for private political opinions propaganda. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The young people just tried to express their thoughts about the name of the city. They didn't intend a political propaganda. Only they couldn't choose the appropriate way of expression. They understand that we are off the topic now. Gantuya eng (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't that supposed to be "Chinggis khot" anyway? ]:| Yaan (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No it should be Genghis Khot. Gantuya eng (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Ulan Bator" or "Ulan-Bator"?

Is it "Ulan Bator" or "Ulan-Bator"? Gantuya eng (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ulaanbaatar!  :) But if you're discussing the archaic spelling, it would be Ulan Bator without the hyphen. Vidor (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Many languages got Mongolian capital name via Russian. In English (as in Polish, Bulgarian etc.) traditional name is without the hyphen.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If it was loaned via Russian it should have a hyphen! I request to put a hyphen in it. Gantuya eng (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The English language has a long history of taking foreign words and doing what it will to them. If we must use the archaic spelling, we shouldn't make it even more archaic by inserting a hyphen that might be used in Russian but simply isn't in English. Vidor (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Image; river name

Am I to understand that I incorrectly identified another river as the Tuul River when posting the image of people washing their clothes? If this is the case I can replace that file with another file with the correct name. Vidor (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

But where did you made this picture? May be you can help to make this image name more correct?Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How will the article benefit by placing a picture of naughty people washing their clothes in namely Tuul river? This will make the article look like a page from the former Soviet "Crocodile" journal, GDR "Eulenspiegel" journal and MPR "Woodpecker" journal. Gantuya eng (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I took the picture during a visit to Ulaanbaatar in 2006. We crossed a river, and I took the picture, and I assumed it was the Tuul River because that was the river I had read about. I received a message on my talk page indicating that my picture was incorrectly named and I see in the article that the caption has been changed. As for how the article benefits, I believe it serves as an illustration that many people living in Ulaanbaatar, those living in the ger quarters, do not have access to running water. Vidor (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

a) More symbolic illustration of the poor access to running water could be a queue at a water distribution point. But such a picture may ugly the article even worse. And how are you gonna then illustrate the faction of the population that does have access to running water?

b) The river resembles Selbe rather than Tuul. The mountains behind don't look like Mt. Boghda Khan. It looks more like mountains at the north of UB. Branches of Chingeltei mountains or something of that sort. Gantuya eng (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody who has a picture of people in Ulaanbaatar standing in line to get water can always replace my photo with theirs. As for the people who do have access to water, that is not notable and does not require illustration; surely people in a modern, world capital city that DO have water are not unusual. The notable thing is the people who do not. Vidor (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia simply illustrates the reality of this world, and doesn't censor its possibly "ugly" parts. As to the river shown, that appears to be the Uliastai Gol. I played around a bit with Google earth, and the only good topographical match was the bridge at 47°54′06″N 107°01′51″E. It has the same mountains on the north-eastern horizon, the same curved river bank, and the same steel mast carrying high voltage cables from the transformer station a bit further east. The Uliastai meets the Tuul approximately one km behind us. --Latebird (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't censor. It's not censored, but it would be good to be aesthetically tasteful. Also, what does the picture have to do with the section "Administration and subdivisions" ? Gantuya eng (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to accept that reality isn't always "aesthetically tasteful", and not censor for that reason either. The picture simply illustrates life in the city, so it would fit anywhere in the article. --Latebird (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really related to the discussion above, but are these people really washing clothes, or are they washing carpets? Those things on the concrete certainly look too big even for a deel. Yaan (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are washing their carpets. --GenuineMongol (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, how do we know they live in gers? I guess it's very plausible they live in a ger district, but that does not necessarily mean they live in a circular felt structure. Yaan (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It illustrates those who have access to running water. The carpet is too big for the bathroom. Or if you show those who are washing their cars at the river because the tap doesn't reach downstairs. Gantuya eng (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed the reference to clothes to the more general "the wash". River name also changed. Vidor (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a Mongolian environment related page? This picture could be more relevant in such an article. Gantuya eng (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the Tuul river is not so pristine anyway when it leaves UB. But this car wash stuff is really strange. Especially in the countryside. Yaan (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Subarctic climate?

I fail to see how the climate can be classed as subarctic. At 47° north it's nowhere near the polar regions and is further south than Paris and almost all of Germany. Due to this lattitude, it doesn't have the long hours of daylight in the summer and darkness in the winter, which I've always thought is a key characteristic of a "subarctic climate". The climate is more a semi-arid extreme continental climate, not much different from Astana in Kazakhstan and several cities of the Great Plains in North America, which are usually classified as semi-arid continental climates. (talk) 17:53, 03 May 2009 (UTC)

Latitude is only one factor among many. The climate of Mongolia is primarily defined by its high altitude and large distance to any ocean. This means that it can be subarctic, even if places further north enjoy moderate climate elsewhere (eg. in Europe). The definition on Subarctic stresses that its extent is "depending on local climate" and explicitly includes northern Mongolia. --Latebird (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Mongolian territory has a lot of permafrost, large parts of Mongolia have annual average temperatures below zero C. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Was the city moved?

"Since 1778 it has been located in the Tuul river valley. "

So, was the city moved to the river valley, or was the river valley moved to the city? Or is this just a typo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.116.132 (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

City moved, as it was written. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ulaanbaatar for 2010

Just thought I'd observe Tsagaan Sar by pointing out that "Ulan Bator" is an incorrect, archaic spelling, that "Ulaanbaatar" is the correct transliteration, more frequently used, and recognized by many official sources, and that this article should be moved. Vidor (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right - this name (Ulaanbaatar) is a correct native Mongolian name transliteration widely used by both Mongolians and official bodies. But Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) not determines a simple native names transliteration - we don't use in English Moskva but Moscow, not Warszawa but Warsaw etc. Traditional English name is widely used out of Mongolia - I see it in BBC, EuroNews, DW-TV, France24 and in numerous printed sources. So "Ulan Bator" is not "an incorrect, archaic spelling" but a traditional one, even now widely used out of Mongolia. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Vidor, please only come back to this topic when you have new arguments. Just repeating those that have already been rejected many times will not help your case in any way. It only makes you look unreasonable and disruptive. --Latebird (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, I think I'll come back to this argument whenever I want. And new arguments really aren't necessary, because the old ones were enough--the simple, obvious fact of the correct transliteration of the Cyrillic letters in the name, the host of official, authoritative sources that use "Ulaanbaatar", pointed out often and at great length. Cheers! Vidor (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring policies, guidelines, and naming conventions. Your choice. --Latebird (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Policies, guidelines, and naming conventions surely say that we should spell a city's name correctly. The fact of the matter is that you are simply wrong. The city's name is spelled "Ulaanbaatar", local authorities use "Ulaanbaatar", and sources everywhere, from the U.S. Embassy in Ulaanbaatar on down, use "Ulaanbaatar". I don't think Wikipedia will collapse if I point this out on, oh, an annual basis. That being said, an annual basis is enough for me. Vidor (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Bogmolov, I'd say the difference in your comparison is that no one in English uses "Moskva" and "Warszawa". "Moscow" and "Warsaw" are near 100% usage. Contrast, for example, the broad range of sources in English that use "Ulaanbaatar". These range from the governments of the two biggest English-speaking countries on Earth, the United Kingdom and United States, to scholarly works (search inside) to tourist guide books. Vidor (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My name is Bogomolov.PL, please don't change it as Wikipedia rules don't welcome this behaviour. My position: your declaration "Ulan Bator" is an incorrect, archaic spelling is not reflectiing more complex situation as Ulan Bator is a traditional English name widely used even now. I never claimed Ulaanbaatar is not in use, but using of Ulan Bator is not a mistake. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The Google count nowadays is 1,540,000 for Ulaanbaatar and 638,000 for Ulan Bator. Just received from my Mongolian in-laws an English-language guide to the country (Mongolia, ISBN 99929-0-627-8), and it uses "Ulaanbaatar". Google Maps uses Ulaanbaatar, but I think that was referenced somewhere in past discussions of this topic. Vidor (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In Mongolia the transliteration Ulaanbaatar is in use. But in printed sources is present predominantly Ulan Bator:

• Google Books 2370 Ulan Bator, 1450 Ulaanbaatar.

In Wikipedia Google Books search result (not Google web search) is a relevant tool for the frequency definition. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's now really time to use 'Ulaanbaatar', since it's overwhelmingly everywhere? Gantuya eng (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In printed sources present in Google Books Ulan Bator is overwhelming with score 2370:1450. In news tv-channels EuroNews, BBC, Deutsche Welle, France24 Ulan Bator is in use. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I like how Gantuya eng thinks! Vidor (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Only two of the active editors here are for Ulan Bator. The rest are for Ulaanbaatar. And we still need consensus???? GenuineMongol (talk) 10:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. It is absolutely normal to have more editors from Mongolia (as more as possible), but English speaking Wikipedia readers are predominantely out of Mongolia, so using of Ulan Bator in English printed books and English mass media is a reason for the actual article name preserving. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, the two opposing members are not native English speakers. GenuineMongol (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you do a Google Books search limited to the last decade, you get the reverse with the new name winning out 2:1 over the old name. Old books will obviously use the old name but in terms of current usage, Ulaanbaatar wins convincingly. --Polaron | Talk 22:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Really Google Books findes 6,560 "Ulan Bator" and 14,600 "Ulaanbaatar". In my opinion Ulan Bator is a traditional English name established just after this city renaming, but Ulaanbaatar is a Mongolian name transliteration, it wins as it is in the official use in Mongolia and writing about Mongolia authors are over Mongolian transliteration tradition influence. But several English speaking mass media sources (out of Mongolia) are using Ulan Bator, so we can't say that Ulan Bator is out of use for the English speaking visitors, I see. Article naming idea is not based on "correct" name teaching, but more widely known name using. Wikipedia redirections mechanism helps in an article finding even if a visitor is using a different but wellknown name variant as it is with Ulan Bator/Ulaanbaatar/Urga now. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There are currently two obstacles: First, it is not possible to search Google Books for works in English alone. This means, that many of those results are actually in other languages, which renders the cited figures irrelevant for this discussion. I agree that the incidence of "Ulaanbaatar" there has slightly increased over the last two years (when I checked last), but I'd still consider the result inconclusive. The other issue is that "general use" is more closely mirrored by the printed press. The pattern there is that during quiet times, when only specialist publications report about Mongolia, "Ulaanbaatar" is ahead. But when something interesting happens (elections, riots, etc.) and the mass publications with wider audiences jump in, then "Ulan Bator" takes the lead again. And it is those "big guys" with the big audiences who actually define the "most common use". I'm sure that we'll have justification to make the switch some day in the foreseeable future, but I don't think we're quite there yet. --Latebird (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)