Talk:Kamchatka Krai

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force.

Flag article

There is simply not enough information to justify a separate article on the flag. This information can be comfortably incorporated into the main article here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. While there is clearly not a lot of information available in the Flag of Kamchatka article, traditionally the articles on flags/coats of arms/anthems are kept separately from the articles on main entities.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was once considering the same possibility myself. I started working on the flags of the federal subjects off Russia since it seemed that the topic looked as if it had been largely ignored. So far, I have only created three other stubs other than this one:

I really have no objections to whether or not to merge these articles. Maybe it would be for the best, and I can incorporate my future contributions this way as well. American Imperialist (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any real opinion on this issue, even though I created the article. I'll just simply go with flow (considering that may be the best thing to do since I'm new to Wikipedia). American Imperialist (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As it was said flags have their own pages in Wikipedia. Also it is not because they all have too much info, just because it is too much of an importance I guess. Also all states of US have a seperate article for a flag. Steelmate (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus/little debate. Merge tag removed. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians

Armenians should be included in the White group as they are white, even if they live in Asia (the same as Israel)--88.23.27.228 (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Article needs cleanup. Clean it up, if you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.65.180 (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kamchatsky Krai, not "Kamchatka Krai"

The established term for the administrative entity is Kamchatsky krai, it is being used officially this way. Forcing an alternative spelling with this article title may only lead to confusion (people filling documents forms etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitekatt (talk • contribs) 13:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Ministry Website: http://thailand.mid.ru/en/about-russia/regions-of-russia "Kamchatsky krai"

Rosselkhoznadzor - Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance website: http://www.fsvps.ru/fsvps/structure/terorgs?_language=en "Kamchatsky krai" etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitekatt (talk • contribs) 13:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no one established term. Note that spelling used by the Russian websites has no bearing on what's used in English (although it can be considered together with other alternatives). "Kamchatsky Krai" is a valid transliteration, yes, but here in the English Wikipedia the names of the modern federal subjects are only transliterated when no common English name exists. Thus, "Kamchatka Krai" is used because it is a successor of an entity known in English as "Kamchatka Oblast"; "Zabaykalsky Krai", on the other hand, is transliterated because it's a new name with no established equivalent in English (yet), although I see Britannica finally has an article about it under "Zabaykalye", with "Transbaikal Territory (Krai)" being presented as the name in English, which is the title I expect our article will eventually use. Although given the number of factual errors in that article and the general lack of other authoritative English-language sources, I'd argue for sticking with transliteration for now :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 3, 2016; 13:19 (UTC)

I think I did not phrase it correctly myself. It is not about an established term, it is about an established way of representing names in the translation science. The obsolete Kamchatskaya Oblast is a good example, because Google search for the exact match gives ~20,000 for "Kamchatka Oblast" and over 100,000 for "Kamchatskaya Oblast". Now, with Krai, it may be different simply because the Wikipedia has had it for a while - there are tons of websites copying information from Wiki automatically and manually and something from Wikipedia easily gets prevalent in the global informational space. And it is exactly why it is important for Wikipedia to have things corrected.

There is one well known example of a foreign-origin name, such as Notre-Dame de Paris - it inherits the spelling and even the pronunciation both in English and in Russian. If you'd say it "Notre-Dame de Париж", somebody would likely try to correct you. Now what the hell is "Krai"? There is no "Krai" or "Oblast" in English language, as well as there is no "de" in English and in Russian. It is only valid as a part of the name. Why bother carrying over "Krai" into English language if the origin of the name is not retained? It gives birth to a linguistical freak "Kamchatka Krai" that is not correct in English (because there is no "Krai" in English) and it is not correct in Russian - nobody says "Камчатка край"! Its just plain illiteracy. The form Kamchatka is fine as long as it used with proper English word like "state" or "region".

About the usage. People tend to use names of things in the language of origin to show respect towards a foreign culture. It is quite typical to read in travel notes something like "in Osaka, we had some teriyaki" or "we drove Landstraße". Now, when somebody who does not know Russian, comes across such thing as "Kamchatka Krai", he might pick it up and use it exactly for that reason - because of "Krai" it gives the impression of something Russian, but it is not.

Let me finish this with a quote from English Style Guide - A handbook for authors and translators in the European Commission - it is very clear on the subject: "5.18 Names of regions. Regional names fall into three types. - Administrative units. Anglicise only those names with translations in the Country Compendium. Other names should be left in the native spelling, without inverted commas.". It is a standard for translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitekatt (talk • contribs) 17:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at talk:federal subjects of Russia#Correct translation, where this thread was moved.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 10, 2016; 14:41 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Formal request has been received to merge the article Kamchatka Peninsula into Kamchatka Krai; dated: May 2018. Discuss here. Pinging proposer @Numberguy6:. Richard3120 (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. I see the reasoning why, but I disagree. One article is about the landform, and the other is about the administrative district. For example, the Mornington Peninsula has a separate article from the Shire of Mornington Peninsula, even though they both cover the same area. I think we should leave it like that for Kamchatka as well. AndreyKva (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. This can make sense if a jurisdiction and a piece of physical geography are essentially identical, e.g. Madagascar (island) redirects to Geography of Madagascar, and it presumably would redirect to Madagascar if there weren't enough information to have a separate geography article. However, the krai is a good deal larger, leaving the peninsula merely a (very large) region of the krai. Merging either one to the other would create the impression that they're the same thing. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]