Talk:Rechytsa

spelling

This article needs moved to the BGN translit of the BE name. --Irpen 21:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 21:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing specific about this particular city in comparison to the other cities of Homiel/Homyel/Gomel Voblast, such as Dobruš, Turaŭ, or Žytkavičy. So, let's settle the rules first, and then probably leave it to Belarusian guys, who really care about consistent and systematic naming of Belarusian cities. --KPbIC 01:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are too few Belarusian editors to claim that their opinion is representative. There are plenty of Ukrainian, Polish and Russian ones and one can reasonably argue that their distribution of opinions represent the diversity of their nation. If there were only two or three Ukrainians and two of them argued for including the Drahomanivka in naming conventions, a statistical fluke not impossible in such a small sampling, it would have been a big mistake for the Wikipedia community to not try to find out for themselves what the situation with script in Ukraine is. I did do a little homework and also got advice from Yuri. From that I conclude that Lacinka and IOT are not the basis for the transliteration. I am entitled to state so at this page no matter whether I am Belarusian or not. --Irpen 06:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be funny if it wasn't sad - Russians and Polish represent "diversity". The rule is to name cities articles as they are named locally, so why they could be moved to some other names? --Monk 16:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monk, perhaps I did not express myself clearly. I have an immense respect to the BE-nation. I have many friends among them, and while I always boast how my own nation, the Ukrainians, are tolerant, open and friendly (and I stand by that) I must with a great deal of envy say that the Belarusians are even more so.

My diversity comment was misinterpreted. A healthy amount of Ukrainians (or Russians or Poles for that matter) represent the diversity within their nations. If there were, say, 10 active BE editors, there would have been a reasonable chance that the sampling is representative of Belarusians in general as well. When you have only 2 or three people, the chance of the statistical fluke is much higher, that's all I was going to say and this is indeed the case here. Lacinka has only a fringe following among the Belarusians similarly to the Drahomanivka among the Ukrainians. I know that from my many visits to your nation and from many friends from there, who came from different Belarusian places. Moreover, a vast number of people in Belarus (all literate BTW) would simply not be able to read the text in Lacinka at all. Therefore, I said that if of three BE-editors you and Rydel call for Lacinka, it does not mean that so Belarusians think. If there where 10 of you here and 7 called for Lacinka, the situation would have been difficult. From what I can judge, the BE-mainstream is represented by the views of Yuri Tarasevich. Note, that I am not calling for foreigners resolving the BE issues as they see fit. I called for us to first get a clue of the situtaion and then try to settle this, only because there are too few Belarusians on Wiki to have this settled among themselves. I would truly welcome more Belarusian editors joining this project. --Irpen 20:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. There is detailed proposal on clarification of the ambiguous WP:CYR#Belarusian, placed on the recently hotly used Talk on Maladzyechna, together with rationale and background. Any specific objections to it? ---Yury Tarasievich 21:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. --Irpen 21:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already know that from those Talk page :) -- What about other quarelling parties? ---Yury Tarasievich 21:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that 'proposal' is that you (together with kuban kazak) clearly push it through without listening to others. It is clear that there were more objections than supports to this 'proposal', but somehow it made its way from the talk page to the WP:CYR, and now you try to back your intentions to change everything by this controversial 'proposal'. Try to discuss, not push. Be constructive. --Monk 13:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not mind-reader. I'm putting out proposal to disambiguation of the rules. Your objections to my proposal, precisely, please? ---Yury Tarasievich 13:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]