Talk:Little Russia Office

Ukraine Low‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name

@Damianmx: I've reverted your title move as I disagree with the "Office of Little Russia" as being comparable to the "Collegium of Little Russia". Firstly, "Little Russian Office" is demonstrably used as the English form of the agency. Secondly, "office" is an extremely generic term that comes out as being completely uninformative structured in this manner.

I can see arguments for the use of 'agency' as meeting naturalness per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, but any changes to the title need to be discussed with other editors before being made. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna, I don't feel strongly about either of these versions of the name. I changed the original title simply because I thought the existing wording would be confusing to people unfamiliar with the original Russian name. In English, the "Little Russian Office" sounds like an office that is small and Russian, not that it is an office of Little Russia - a geopolitical entity. How about the Little Russia Office? A simple search in Google Books reveals that such usage is not unprecedented, there's a few books mentioning the "Office of Little Russia", as well as the "Little Russia Office". Just a thought...--Damianmx (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2[reply]

I can't say that I feel strongly about it, either. Essentially, I think this is an opportunity to change the title to something a little more descriptive. "Little Russia Office" would work, but "Little Russia Agency"/"Little Russia Ministry"/"Little Russia Commission"/"Little Russia Bureau" convey the function in an automatically comprehensible manner. Thoughts on this, or is it overstepping WP:NOR? Ultimately, there's very little academic work available on this Prikaz in English, so it gives us some leverage. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure about the choice between word "office"/"ministry"/"agency". I feel like "agency" sounds a bit too modern to describe something hundreds of years ago. Ministry may be more appropriate, but still, to me "ministry" sounds a lot larger and more significant than what the word "office" implies. Since most of the sources go with some form of "office", I would just stay with that to avoid crossing into original research.--Damianmx (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2[reply]

Yep. With you on that. They do sound disproportionately pompous. I'm good with "Little Russia Office". It sounds more like a department of sorts than 'Little Russian Office' (is that an office built for small Russians?). If no other editors have anything to say on the matter in the next day or two, it should be fine to move it and just create a redirect from this title. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I think at this point enough time has passed that I will go ahead and do the move to Little Russia Office. I doubt anyone feels passionate enough to disagree with this solution, but we'll see.--Damianmx (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC) <-- CU blocked sock of User:Satt 2[reply]

Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]