Talk:Syktyvkar

RFV discussion

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Tagged in September by DCDuring. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the aspect that requires verification? There's no doubt about the existence of the city nor of this being a widely used transliteration of the Russian name of it. It is also a capital of a semi-autonomous region and we tend to include them. --Hekaheka 08:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the transliteration actually used not mentioned in English running text? Do all capitals ipso facto get a free pass? Do they not have to meet attestation standards?

We still don't have a well thought-out approach to WikiGazetteer/WikiAtlas entries. (BTW, I have no search-and-destroy effort for these. I just tag the ones that show up on clean-up lists for bad formatting etc.) DCDuring TALK 15:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: "What is the aspect that requires verification?": Attributive use, per the CFI: "A person or place name that is not used attributively (and that is not a word that otherwise should be included) should not be included. Lower Hampton, Sears Tower, and George Walker Bush thus should not be included." (See Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#What Wiktionary is not with respect to names.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:United_States_of_America and many other Wiktionary:Unresolved_issues/Place_names. We shouldn't have double standard policy on deletions. --Anatoli 01:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted: no citations were provided. —Ruakh_TALK 19:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly in widespread use in Google and Google books, so should be undeleted, as the term exists and meets the attestation criterion. The attributive-use rule is now obsolete per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities. Could be sent to RFD for failing to meet the new regulations for geographic names, but I cannot recommend that. --Dan Polansky 09:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd never heard of the place before, so it doesn't seem to be in universal widespread use. There are probably at most a few thousand places that would qualify as universally in widespread use. We need to make sure that the transliterations in our entries are the ones actually in use. Citations in English running text that are on the "use" side of the use-mention distinction would be nice and substantially enhance the value of the entry. Both News (topicality) and Books (literary and historical use) citations seem beneficial. DCDuring TALK 12:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems we have a different understanding of "widespread use"; anyway.

Some quotations for you from Google books, easy to find by anyone:

• "After completing his dissertation, Eliashberg found himself in the northern Russian city of Syktyvkar which is, according to"[1]
• "A clear majority of Syktyvkar respondents supported Komi acquisition of sole, or majority, control of the economic production in the republic."[2]
• "Soon the tours went so far afield that the performers were away from Syktyvkar for eight or ten months at a time."[3]

Hence, here we have a proof that the term meets the attestation criterion of CFI. --Dan Polansky 13:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Citations for the place belong at Citations:Syktyvkar. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Restored

Added citations provided, restored the entry. Don't we have modified CFI allowing place names? --Anatoli 00:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)