Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/04/Category:Stoŭbcy

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Stoŭbcy

[edit]

The English common name is Stowbtsy or Stolbtsy. Why was the category Stoŭbcy redirected to a localised transliteration of the Belarusian name? The correct category of Stowbtsy was emptied following a speedy delete invoking 'Wrong name, see Catergory correct name'. The fact is that, per the Wikipedia article and other sources, Stowbtsy or Stolbtsy are recognised English variants, whereas Stoŭbcy is not a recognised English variant. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there is only one truth in the world: the english language! All the other world has to speak english and to praise! Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon? I'm not certain as to how this can be construed as a rational argument for moving categories used for English Wikipedia and English Wiki Commons. Your explanation reads as a cri de coeur rather than policy-based argument. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The name of category is Stoŭbcy, because it is an official Belarusian transliteration to any Latin script language. "Stowbtsy" is an obsolete variant, when "Stolbtsy" is soviet-Russian colonial name. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you care to check the page you've directed me to, you'll find that it is not the MoS standard for English Wikipedia. Either the WP:WIAN - widely accepted (English variant of the) name is used, or the naming conventions (geographic names) for Belarus are used. The convention happens to be BGN/PCGN romanization of Belarusian.
Also note that neither "Stowbtsy" or "Stolbtsy" are 'obsolete'. Belarus has two official languages: Belarusian AND Russian. While it may be unfortunate that Russian is still the state language, Wikipedia has to reflect the reality. "Stowbtsy" is still relevant to the Jewish community, and "Stolbtsy" is still prevalent. Either way, there is no reason to transliterate in any form as widely recognised English variants take precedence over transliteration. Please check the Wikipedia article for Kiev. Note that the recognised form in the English language is used with only an allusion to the Kyiv form as the indigenous name. Note, in particular, that there is no category for 'Kyiv', only 'Kiev'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please, give me sound proof, that "Stowbtsy" or "Stolbtsy" are widely accepted English names. But only reliable sources are acceptable. In my opinion the capital of Ukraine with total population about 3,000,000 and glorious past on the one hand and the capital of small region with less than 15,000 inhabitants and much poorer history on the other hand are too different to compare. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's up to you to prove that isn't known under a common name in the English language before making executive category moves. The Wikipedia article title is Stowbtsy. Standard google search produced this for Stowbtsy; search for Stolbtsy yielded this; search for yielded a few truck routes. Ngram results yielded nothing for Stoŭbcy or Stowbtsy, but yielded a large number of books (I'm providing books from 1994 to 2000 exclusively in this search). In fact, "Stolbtsy" should be the English language version due to its use and recognition as the COMMONNAME in English. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you can't give any reliable sources and according to WP:WIAN - widely accepted (English variant of the) name there is no widely accepted English name for this place. In this case citing naming conventions (geographic names) for Belarus "other settlements are named according to national rules". And according to current national legislation (not obsolete soviet-Russian colonial rules, because there is no such country like "Byelorussian Soviet Socialistic Republic", which was in 1979) there is only one correct English name for this place and this name is Stoŭbcy. Just cite Law on geographical objects: "In Belarus, geographic names are assigned in Belarusian and by transliteration method passed into Russian" (Article 17), and "State Property Committee of Belarus ... defines the rules for transliteration of names of geographical objects in Latin alphabet" (Article 9). And according to Instruction on transliteration of geographical names of Belarus issued by State Property Committee of Belarus "Geographical names of Belarus are transliterated from the modern Belarusian spelling" (paragraph 7) according to official Belarusian transliteration to any Latin script language (Appendix). Also I can refer to official state manual issued by National Academy of Science Назвы населеных пунктаў Рэспублікі Беларусь: Мінская вобласць: Нарматыўны даведнік / Пад рэд. В.П.Лемцюговай. 2003. С. 456, which gives only Stoŭbcy. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition as we can see from this (fourth, sixth and seventh links) "Stolbtsy" is not only name of Belarusian place, so any quantitative search results are non-relevant. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to present as many cases as you wish however, if there are no common English language usages, the transliteration follows the English Wikipedia MoS, being BGN/PCGN for Belarusian. You're also ignoring the fact that there are two official languages in Belarus: Belarusian and Russian. The 'national rules' have not been adopted by the English speaking world (despite their having been posited as recommendations, not 'rules' in 2000 and updated in 2007). Furthermore, Belarusian government sites from top level to raions don't adhere to their own 'recommendations'... they're not even consistent in the nomenclature from municipality to municipality. Per the MoS,
"... the Working Group on Romanization Systems of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names, UNGEGN may be additionally included, if sufficiently different from the BGN/PCGN version."
Please note the absence of 'instead of' as a qualifier.
According to the Wikipedia MoS, the transliteration of "Стоўбцы" is "Stowbtsy" (therefore was correct as the transliteration for the Belarusian nomenclature, per the Wikipedia article for Stowbtsy), and "Столбцы" as "Stolbtsy" for the Russian transliteration.
The next step is to apply for speedy deletion of this category and invite you and Marcus Cyron to explain how any of your non-addressing of policy, outside of your I don't like it stances, could be construed to be anything other than blatantly tendentious through tag team editing and gaming the system. When I go through other moves that have been made, I wonder how many more you've managed to sneak in under the radar. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carrying with gaming the system please don't forget about common courtesy. It's about "tag team" and other offensive accusations. I have neither the desire nor the nerves to continue the conversation in such a tone. In any case I've already given all nessesary arguments for usage of official approved and reccomended by United Nations transliteration instead of illegal and obsolete system. I repeat, that Belarusian legislation gives only secondary role for Russian in naming of geographical objects. So the officiality of Russian doesn't matter here. Also I should pay your attention that English Wikipedia MoS is just "a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process" as denoted above the page. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna, I am sorry, but you do not show any reliable arguments that Stoŭbcy is Stowbtsy in English. In the new version of google maps Stoŭbcy is Stoŭbcy. Both, in Google and Bing, the quantity of search results for Stoŭbcy is only growing. To return back to Stowbtsy is to muddle the search in the future. - Frantishak (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My Google Map very clearly shows Stowbcy.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Stolbtsy. Russian is still the mothertongue of 95% of the population f Belarus, and I do not see why should we ever discuss here the romanization of Belarusian as fully irrelevant. In Russian, the romanization is unambiguous.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's false about mothertongue (everybody could find it out in official results of the last Belarus Census). Belarusian geographical names are Belarusian сultural heritage, not Russian. So Russian romanization doesn't concern this topic. There is no legal Russian transliteration system in Belarus. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what? There is one accepted in Wikipedia, it is pretty much sufficient. Saying that Belarusian geographical names are Belarusian сultural heritage is sheer nonsense.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. It means there is nothing reasonable and truthful in your comment. By the way "Saying that Belarusian geographical names are Belarusian сultural heritage" is a citation from the preamble of Law on geographical objects of Belarus. So here we are. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are not bound by the laws of Belarus as you should perfectly know.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In our case legislation of Belarus is reliable source while your opinion is just you personal opinion. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Go and read the policies first, then please come back.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter, what is your problem? You want something, bawl for it using incorrect arguments (mothertongue of 95 %)!!, while Frantishak has given a pretty good reason for the present name - english usage of Stoŭbcy both in Google and Bing. In addition to it - Stoŭbcy region only 42,59% of people use russian, most use belarusian. No logical sense in using russified name. I say all good arguments say Stoŭbcy - and if any policy declares otherwise whe should discuss that policy and it's sanity and suitability to wiki. - Melilac (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firsdt, you will not be able tio substantiate your argument that 43% of population speak Belarussian as mother tongue - it is plain wrong. Second, even if they do, Stoŭbcy is not a valid romanization already rejected by the English Wikipedia. As simple as that.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter, what do you mean writing that Stoŭbcy is not a valid romanization? It is the only right option for Belarus itself. English Wikipedia is English Wikipedia, but Wikimedia is not only for users of English Wikipedia. Once they did, then they will improve. So it is a bad argument. If to support your opinion, we have to change most of Irish toponymy, etc. - Frantishak (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we go for the majority of sources, I am afraid it will be Stolbtsy, and next Stowbtsy. Whart Belarus thinks about it is absolutely irrelevant. They are not an authority in the English language.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the Irish toponimy, Dublin is Dublin on Commons and not Baile Átha Cliath. Just because it is Dublin in English.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, Ymblanter, would you cite those major sources? Your opinion Whart Belarus thinks about it is absolutely irrelevant. They are not an authority in the English language is controversial, because there is no any historical traditions in English to name Stoŭbcy as Stolbtsy, as it is with Dublin (the other way, Mumbai is Mumbai, not Bombay). Still your only sensible but again controversial argument is a case of English Wiki. - Frantishak (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We also have Google Maps. In addition, you have zero sensible arguments, which makes the count 2:0.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your way of counting arguments looks quite strange to me. 1) Google Maps uses the way of Romanization chosen by the local editing community using a poll. Based on this, it cannot be a reliable source. 2) Neither spelling variant of the name has been rejected yet by English Wikipedia. There has been just a series of page moves with a number of different spellings without any wide discussion or community decision. The discussion taking place on this page seems to be the first one attempting to find and analyze the existing reliable sources. —zedlik (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making the first edit here since May. Concerning the English Wikipedia, en:WP:BELARUSIANNAMES is still there and is used. Nobody ever contested it in 10 years in existence.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that laying emphasis on my editing rate in that sarcastic way you did is actually relevant for this discussion. The article you gave the link to has already been discussed above, including its controversy with "national rules" term defined by en:WP:NCGN. Moreover, discussions on its talk page show that the proposed rules should be reconsidered for many languages, including Belarusian. The current BGN/PCGN romanization has been used for historical reasons because it was introduced prior the Belarusian national naming conventions, and I believe that this question is still going to be risen on English Wikipedia, because an adoption of naming conventions for Belarusian is still required. Finally, indiscriminate acceptance in Commons of guidelines used in English Wikipedia is also an open question. —zedlik (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter, google maps in my computer shows Stoŭbcy as Stoŭbcy, Minsk Region, Belarus, in my tablet - as Stowbtsy, Minsk Region, Belarus. So it is an absolutely fake argument. zedlik has explained this. In principle, you would present any counts, but I hope it is not a discussion for fun. Try to provide your position with those "major sources" and it will be much more serious. - Frantishak (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I have to give up. You guys come with no arguments except for "I do not like it", make up transliteration and then ask me to provide arguments that this bullshit is not real. And when I do, you call them non-arguments. Well, make up any names you want here. I do not have any energy to fight all kinds of nonsense you make up. Great, let us have a real name in the English Wikipedia and a fake name here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about category name 斯托爾布齊 or סטוובצי. Do you agree to have categories in Chinese? Hebrew? Arabic? Can you read them? I believe that the answer is no. I also believe that your keyboard doesn't support those languages. We need uniformity. English keyboard is the most widespread in the world and Commons language policy clearly says "Category names should generally be in English". I dont see any reason to deviate from the name in the en.wiki. -- Geagea (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What can you say about English keyboard and pages in these categories: Category:Cities in Lithuania, Category:Cities in Świętokrzyskie Voivodeship? Should we rename them? --Red Winged Duck (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, if you have any better idea what the new name should be. --A.Savin 12:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is simply no need in doing this. The goal is to use Latin script, and all the characters like ę, ś or ł are still part of Latin script and widely understood. Above were the examples for Lithuanian and Polish names; same, German city of Category:Lübeck is known and recognized exactly under this name. In turn, every German dictionary contains the word de:Café, while the letter é is not present in the German alphabet and cannot be typed in a trivial way. This is a common natural process of borrowing foreign words or proper names and there is nothing special in usage of diacritic marks in English or any other language that uses Latin script. —zedlik (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Stolbtsy. Russian is an official language in Belarus, and by far the widest spoken. The romanization of Belarusian is a thorny issue, so much so that we have two wikipedias in this language. Better not open that can of worms. --Ghirlandajo (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you appeal to the laws of Belarus, according to Law on geographical objects of Belarus. Article 17 (page 22): all the names of geographical objects must be given in belarusian language and then transliterated to russian. So the name of geographical object in Belarus cannot be transliterated from russian. --Red Winged Duck (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Laws of Belarus are absolutely irrelevant for this discussion, as made obviuos above.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personal opinions like "Russian is an official language in Belarus, and by far the widest spoken" are absolutely irrelevant for this discussion, as made obviuos above. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a personal opinion. This is a fact.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the fact is that there is no any legal Russian transliteration for places of Belarus. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are not in a court, we are at Wikimedia Commons. What we need are not legal names but the most common ones in English. And this is Minsk and certainly not Miensk. You can use in Belarusian Wikipedias any names you like.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The next fact is that for most Belarusian places (except perhaps Minsk, but this name isn't under question now and here) there are no any widely used names in English. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seriuosly? Let us take Google hits as a rough estimate. Mstislavl - 310 thousands; Mstsislaw - 195 thousands; Mscislaŭ - 2090, Mscisłaŭ - 978 (not thousands, just 978). You will need to work had to prove that Mscisłaŭ or Mscislaŭ is as commons as Mstislaw or Mstislavl. I would be fine with using Mstislaw as the main name, but certainly not Mscislaŭ.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot about Mscislau - 78 thousands, that is equial to Mscislaŭ. But you should prove that, first results for Mstislavl and Mstsislaw are really in English, second they refer to modern city of Belarus, and third that this case differs from e.g. Dnepropetrovsk (36,4 millions) vs Dnipropetrovsk (just 9,8 millions), but Dnipropetrovsk is modern official name. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica gives Stowbtsy (volume 14; page 848). If it is not a reliable source then what will be? --Jarash (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those who can listen it is.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EugeneZelenko: I appeal to you for closure of this discussion. Also I have found a secondary and to my mind reliable source that uses form "Stowbtsy", namely WolframAlpha. --Jarash (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to abstain. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy, Kazimier Lachnovič, Ymblanter, Red Winged Duck, Ghirlandajo, Zedlik, A.Savin, and Frantishak: I am tempted to simply close this as stale and lacking consensus, but figure it is worth asking if any consensus has been reaching on how this place should be referred to in Commons category names. Please advise. Josh (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let us call the things by proper names: A group of disruptive editors, who tried to force their preferred spelling on the English Wikipedia but was not successful tries to block everything related to this spelling on Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I could not understand Ymblanter's opinion. Is it a relentless struggle for the purity of English for the name of (anyway) the Belarusian origin or his way to insult the opponents? - Frantishak (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Frantishak and Ymblanter: Agreed, I am not sure what the point of the comment was. Ymblanter, can you explain what you consider to be the 'proper' name? There is no need to discuss the motivations of other contributors in this forum. Josh (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have a group of Belarusian users who are generally disruptive and insist on some obscure Romanizationn of Belarusian, trying to promote it in all project. In the English Wikipedia, they failed miserably, because every sane person understands that Stoŭbcy is not the most common English name, and it is trivial to check this for example by Google. And the English Wikipedia article understandably is Stowbtsy. However, here they manage to keep the battleground. They were offered two choices: Stowbtsy, which is the most common Romanisation of Belarusian, and Stolbtsy, which is Romanization of Russian (the language most commonly used in Belarus). These two variants are responsible for 99% of the usage. However, they are not happy with either version and trying to defend Stoŭbcy. I guess Commons is almost the only reputable English language website using Stoŭbcy, but they still manage to block the move, to the point that you want to close it as stale.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, but some obscure Romanizationn of Belarusian is the official way of on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script in Belarus. Do you not like this transliteration or is this your struggle for the purity of English? Frantishak (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The government of Belarus is not in a position to determine usage of names in English. This is exactly the reason why this romanization has been rejected by the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who says about determining? You have not answered my question to understand your position clear, thus I will take your mention about EnWiki (WC and EnWiki are not the same!) as showing your struggle for the purity of English. If my understanding of your position is not right, please let me know. So my answer: Stoŭbcy is a small Belarusian town and all mentions of it in English were rare and occasional. Yes, writing of Stowbtsy was in use, but it was not a real steady tradition of spelling. Stoŭbcy is indigenous spelling. So why not to accept it, as well as many other examples of indigenous spelling in WC (Category:Lübeck, Category:Pabradė, Category:Nikšić, Category:Mosjøen, Category:Nässjö, Category:Chuuk, and many-many others)? Frantishak (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the answer is obvious: These names are in the languages using the Latin alphabet. Neither Belarusian or Russian use the Latin alphabet and need to be romanized.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, do you completely reject the Belarusian Latin alphabet that is in the base of the official way of on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script? Frantishak (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus at the English Wikipedia is to follow w:en:BGN/PCGN romanization of Belarusian. The Google search results clearly show that this is consensus accepted everywhere in the world, with the possible exception of Belarus.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter, please, do not turn our dialogue into apples and oranges. I ask you, if you reject the Belarusian Latin alphabet. But you began to tell about EnWiki! Again, WC is not EnWiki. If you want we would jibe our discussion into English Wikipedia and I will show my arguments why Stoŭbcy is better than Stowbtsy and believe me after changing in EnWiki Google search results will be changed too. But here and now would you explain why do not you like spelling in the Belarusian Latin alphabet? Is it flawed in front of the other Latin alphabets or what? Why Serbian and Montenegrian Category:Nikšić, Category:Šumadija, Category:Sandžak or Category:Bačka are OK, but Belarusian Stoŭbcy is obscure romanization for you? Frantishak (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by rejecting the Belarusian Latin alphabet. I am not an institution to reject anything. I just observe that it is not in use (actually, not in use at all outside Belarus), and this is the reason I strongly oppose to the current name of the category. The situation with Serbian is different, for the reasons which are out od scope for this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you strongly oppose to Stoŭbcy and I am trying to understand your rational reasons. Otherwise, we will again talk about apples and oranges. At first you conceded a right for national spelling in Wikimedia, if there is the Latin alphabet (These names are in the languages using the Latin alphabet. Neither Belarusian or Russian use the Latin alphabet). You are wrong, there is the Belarusian Latin alphabet. Now you are against because not in use at all outside Belarus. I hardly remember where Bačka was in use before its appearing in Wikipedia and Wikimedia. However, how it would be in use, if you eject it? Have you any other solid reasons, for instance showing that the name of Stoŭbcy harms to use the category? Sincerely, Frantishak (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The name can not harm anything. If the category is called "The city of assholes", it does not harm anything either. However, you are just pushlng a marginal spelling (of course every language has some Latin alphabet, and, you know, my son designed a Latin abugida a couple of days ago - should we push that one as well?) hoping that using this spelling on Wikimedia projects would help your cause in the real world. Concerning the Serbian spelling, I am afraid Bačka is way more frequently used than Bachka. If this is not the case, let us rename the category.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling that was made by professional linguists, adopted in the national level, experted by UN, really used in Belarus is marginal? Because you do not like a fact of its existence or what? Sorry, but I see your bias, but not a sensible offer to improve the category. - Frantishak (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You somehow try to distort my argument, posing the question what I like and what I do not like. It is not relevant. The correct question is what is actually in use in English and what is not. And the answer is pretty clear. Stoŭbcy is marginal and almost not being used outside the Republic of Belarus. I see that we had exactly the same discussion on this page above in 2015, I am not really surprised that you do not get the point, but I do not see why we should be having it again in almost the same terms.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put some more sources that were used recently:

  1. Stolbtsy region executive committee (nothing more official)
  2. stolbtsy.by («STOLBTSY Team» LTD a news website covering the city news)
  3. Redcross-stolbtsy at yandex.by (the local Red Cross)
  4. Stolbtsy district [1] an article at National Library of Belarus website (2018).

There is an association football club Kronon Stolbtsy, which has many more mentions (transfermarkt, teams.by soccerway) --Jarash (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stolbtsy Has this insular !voting with nothing to support the WP:COMMONNAME as being Stowbtsy or Stolbtsy in English still not been closed? I proposed the deletion, which I am doing again. I propose that "Stoŭbcy" be left as a redirect, however the are no admins or closers. Commons seems to be where all of those POVers who have been blocked from editing an area of English language wikipeddia (if not entirely blocked) run away and take hostage of. It has proven itself to be other than a sister project, but a valueless dupe cashing in on Wikipedia's reputation. Where are your policies? You are the sanctuary for the blog meisters. Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: moved to Category:Stolbtsy. Sans the occasional exception, categories should be in English per COM:CAT. This not one of those exceptions. The most common name trumps official names. --ƏXPLICIT 23:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2014/04/Category:Stoŭbcy&oldid=498672898"