Talk:Lakhdenpokhya

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. JPG-GR (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Lakhdenpokhya → Lahdenpohja — It's a Finnish name, not Russian —<Flrn^talk> 17:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose. The town lies in Russia now. It does not matter that the name is Finnish and Russified. - Darwinek (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Actually, propose renaming to Siyeklakhti, its historical Russian name. No, that is too lame a joke of course. Keep transcription from Russian, per rationale at Suoyarvi and per User:Darwinek.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per WP:RUS#Place names #7, names of Russian locations should be romanized from Russian, not from the local language.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  It's not Russian name, Lahdenpohja = Lakhdenpokhya, but it seems ugly. --<Flrn^talk> 04:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  "Lahdenpohja", of course, is not a Russian name, but "Лахденпохья" is. Equally importantly, it is a name of a place that's located in Russia, and this is where WP:RUS applies. "Ugly" is not an argument. You may also be interested in reading this discussion (especiall its "Update" subsection). While it took place before WP:RUS was amended to its present form, is still of some interest as it deals with English usage.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose seems to be the same discussion as Talk:Suoyarvi; opposed for the same reasons. Parsecboy (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move the page to Lahdenpohja

Many names in the Republic of Karelia are in Finnish, eg. Hiitola, Lahdenpohja, Louhi, Pitkäranta and Suojärvi. In Russian they have been transliterated to "Khiytola", "Lakhdenpokhya", "Loukhi", "Pitkyaranta" and "Suoyarvi".
Although the Finnish towns are Hämeenlinna, Jyväskylä, Äänekoski etc, in Russian Хямеэнлинна, Ювяскюля and Яянекоски, nobody insist that they have to be in English Khyameenlinna, Yuvyaskyulya and Yayanekoski.
--WPK (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see the outcome of the move request above (which was identical to your proposal). The current name of the town is in compliance with WP:RUS, which is based on the English usage of Russian place names. How the names of Russian places are spelled in Finnish is quite irrelevant in the English Wikipedia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

However, "Lakhdenpokhya" is not a Russian place name per se: Лахденпохья is merely a translitteration from "Lahdenpohja" to cyrillic alphabet, as one can easily see from the history of the place, not "a Russian name".

So if I intrepret the WP:RUS #7 widely, I can state that 1) the place name (Lahdenpohja) is already Roman-based and therefore does not need to be romanized and 2) the cyrillic Лахденпохья (Lakhdenpokhya) is not actually Russian but a translitteration from Roman to Cyrillic. Thus Lakhdenpokhya is a result of double translitteration, from Roman to Cyrillic to Roman.

The thing that "Lakhdenpokhya" would be easier to pronounce right than Finnish ortography "Lahdenpohja" does not matter in this case. Lahdenpohja has been a part of Russia / RSFSR only since 1944. If the place name would be Russian-based, "Lakhdenpokhya" would be a natural choice. In this case, it just sounds stupid. Which is not a sign of a good Wikipedia article. Feel free to disagree. Ultrix (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The origins of a "Russian name" do not matter at all; what does matter is the fact that each and every place in Russia has an official name in Russian. That official name is to be used as a source of romanization, and that's what the WP:RUS clause #7 is all about. Ease of pronunciation plays no role here whatsoever—what's important is the spelling used in the English-language sources (maps, atlases, etc.), and for this place such a spelling is definitely not "Lahdenpohja". Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:46, March 30, 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but where on WP:RUS is an указ to use BGN/PCGN romanization? Using GOST (1983) / UN (1987) would allow the spelling "Lahdenpohja". Ultrix (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RUS is a result of a community consensus, which favored BGN/PCGN usage. BGN/PCGN is a preferred method of romanization of the geographic names used in both the US and the UK (two major English-speaking countries); the community consensus was heavily influenced by this fact. Neither GOST nor UN conventions target English speakers (who, after all, comprise the main audience of the English Wikipedia).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:27, October 12, 2009 (UTC)