Talk:Arkhangelsk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fishing port[edit]

What else besides a fishing port is the town of Arkhangelsk? I am very suspicious, as there have been numerous neuclear sub collusions on and around that area, especially between US and Russian subs.

  • This is one of the ports where Allied forces deposited munitions during WWI which subsequently served as an excuse for Allied presence after the withdrawal of Russian forces from the conflict. This of course was seen during the Soviet years as having been an encroachment by the Allies, as evidenced in Kruschev’s lamenting at the U.N..
  • As far as I know there is a large military industry (ship/submarine) in Severodvinsk, about 40 km from Arkhangelsk. I guess the Americans are interested in Severodvinsk, which was a closed city in Soviet times. Arkhangelsk is a port for the wood industry: logs are floated/rafted down the Dwina to Arkhangelsk and loaded on ships there; forestry makes up a third or so of the city's economy. Then there are wood derivative industires such as paper, cellulose and chemistry. Also, Arkhangelsk is a cultural center for all the surrounding towns and villages: kids "from the forest" go to university in Arkhangelsk. You must remember (or look at a map) that, apart from ship-building Severodvinsk, Arkhangelsk is the only city at all in this part of Russia. The next city is 500 km away (Vologda), an in the north-east there are no cities at all. So for this whole area Arkhangelsk serves as an urban center with education, hospitals etc. Cities don't exist for industry alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.26.210 (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Can anyone tell me about the lives of the people in the late 1800's? I heard that Archangelsk was a closed city in early 1900's".

Other names[edit]

Can we get explanation why this city is also reffered to in historical text (16-17th century) as Dünamünde/Dunamunde and Ust-Dvinsk? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Referred to by whom? Probably because the city commands the mouth of the Dvina River, and there is a fortress (see the picture) defending its mouth. Duna is the German for Dvina, munde is the German for mouth. --Ghirlandajo 14:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Arkhangelsk is likely the most correct name and should be used throughout Wiki, however other names exist and should be acknowledged. Dünamünde [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&hl=en&q=D%C3%BCnam%C3%BCnde

824 google hits], Dunamunde 550 hits, Ust-Dvinsk 379 hits. Other possible German name: Erzengelstadt, but I have not seen this one in my research. For your info, those names came up when I was doing research about Polish-Swedish War, and it took me some time to conclude that they probably refer to Arkhangelsk. It would be much easier if they and their redirects were known to Wiki (and FYI, this is the main reason I support inclusion of other than main names in various articles). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had to double check it. Dunamunde (Russian: Ust-Dvinsk) is a fortress in Latvia, 13 miles from Riga, commanding the mouth of the Daugava. The first monastery on the spot was founded by Teutonic Knights in 1201. [1]. --Ghirlandajo 15:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tnx. So if I understand it correctly, those names (Dunamunde/Dünamünde) do not refer to the town of Arkhangelsk, but only to a castle (fortress) somewhere else? I recall some sources speak of 'castle and town of Dunamunde'. But is Dunemunde is the same thing as Ust-Dvinsk? The article on Ivan VI of Russia has a redirect (from Ust-Dvinsk to Arkhangelsk, created by you), which is the source of my confusion. How close is that fortress to the modern Arkhangelsk? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One more name of the place: Daugavgriva. Could you create a stub based on your post above and fix the redircets? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will start the article today. --Ghirlandajo 08:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job - tnx. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Daugravgriva (German Dünamünde) is a fortress currently within the borders of the city of Riga. It seems like it was founded as a cloister and then fortified by the Livonian Order and Bishops of Riga. Count Bernhard II of Lippe became the abbot of it in the early 13th century. These links all mention it a little: [http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=160694], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Olessi 08:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ust-Dvinsk is the Russian name for Daugavgriva, not an alternate name for Arkhangelsk (see EB 1911). Erzengelstadt is the direct translation of Arkhangelsk into German, but that name is not used to refer to the city as far as I can tell. Olessi 08:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

I'm not sure which map was requested, but I added the map showing where Arkhangelsk is located in Russia. Conscious 11:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A closer map showing it's relation to the British Isles might be nice to give context to the WWII convoys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.86.153 (talk) 11:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arkhangelsk[edit]

this page does not give u the information u need to do a school project on —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.69.26.209 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Typing in (and even C&Ping from this page) "

Arkhangelsk" does not bring me to this page (instead I got: "Create the page "Arkhangelsk" on this wiki! See also the search results found.. "). Nor does a search of Wik using "Archangel." In fact, I only got here by doing an Internet search! Kdammers (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get it no problem by copypasting the title of this section into the search window.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Worked fine for me as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arkangeli[edit]

Pure nonsence in the early dates of history, drawn in Russian point of viewed by Stalin and his fellowers in Russian history. They cannot even separate Vienajoki and Väinäjoki from each others. A typical missunderstunding of younger Russian researches trying to re-write the history again under the Soviet history writing as ordered by Stalin (Steelman). A great thanks to this young woman in Jaroslavl to create Russian history in these pages, but have you ever thought to go through real history, not only that which the Russian sources (modified by Stalin after his daughter Sveltana´s schooldays) as you were teached in your school days. ( See Arvo Tuominen: Kremlin Kellot). Arvo Tuominen gives an eyewitnesser report what happened there in Kremlin when Stalin ordered to re-write the Russian history teached in schools in Soviet Union. Never heard of these? The real history is told in: Kremlin Kellot (The Clocks of Kremlin) in a book , regarding this, written by by Arvo (Poika) Tuovinen who was in presence of Stalin when he give this oder to a "Minister of Eduacation". Thus please, do not write articles as they should be, without Russian "new order" influence. Sorry to say this but you are a victim of this.

All history written by this young woman is questionable in standard historical forms regarding the material of Russo - Finnish history and history of north western Russia. Too many errors. English pages in Wikipedia are not idented to be a portrage of Russian false propaganda.

JN

Fair use rationale for Image:Russia500rubles97front.jpg[edit]

Image:Russia500rubles97front.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archangel[edit]

I am not sure how anyone can conclude that Arkhangelsk is the usual name for this port in English. It is usually called Archangel. Google:

  • about 4,010 English pages for Arkhangelsk Convoy
  • about 72,200 English pages for Archangel Convoy

I think that the article should be renamed Archangel, Russia. To name this article Arkhangelsk is like naming Saint Petersburg Sankt-Peterburg --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article about the convoy (if it existed) would most certainly be called "Archangel Convoy", but that doesn't mean that the article about the city should be renamed as well. Every major modern English dictionary, map, or encyclopedia I've consulted refers to the city as "Arkhangelsk". "Archangel" is a name that's as obsolete in reference to the city as "Rumania" is in reference to Romania. Here is another parallel for you: the article about the modern country is called Belarus, but the article about the Soviet republic is titled Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic. All in all, choosing an article's title based on search engine test alone is a pretty poor practice.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking another search
  • about 17,700 for Archangel Russia site:uk
  • about 3,110 for Arkhangelsk Russia site:uk
  • about 14 from gov.uk for Arkhangelsk port
  • about 4,480 from gov.uk for Archangel port
Looking at a couple of online encyclopaedias does not back up your assertion. For example http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/34932/Arkhangelsk states that "Arkhangelsk, Russia" English "Archangel" and Encarta uses Archangel[6]. You say maps
You talk about maps but Admiralty Charts seem to use Archangel, as does Lloyds of London [7].
So what are the sources you are using? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My 2007 school atlas (needed for GCSE so it must have the correct English name) says that the name is Archangel, which I personally think isn't 'historically' it's former name, but may even be the more common name! Bezuidenhout (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal preference has always been for Archangel (just like I am used to Turfan rathern than Turpan, or Muscovy rathern than the "Russian Tsardom (huh?) - however, it is the latter forms which are deemed "current" by Wikipedia), but I am afraid that on Wikipedia I am outnumbered on that count. Although... maybe not always:

  • about 51,700 for arkhangelsk "white sea" / about 50,400 for archangel "white sea"
  • about 172,000 for arkhangelsk dvina / about 44,300 for archangel dvina.
  • about 546,000 for arkhangelsk severodvinsk / about 1,060,000 for archangel severodvinsk
  • about 4,630 for arkhangelsk molotov port / about 34,300 for archangel molotov port
  • about 1,430 for arkhangelsk molotovsk / about 1,580 for archangel molotovsk
  • about 20,500 for arkhangelsk kholmogory / about 4,180 for archangel kholmogory

Although, of course, there are always false positives for the Archangel form, and very few for Arkhangelsk. Vmenkov (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. On the other hand I have to admit that Arkhangelsk has the undeniable advantage of uniqueness, while for Archangel we'll have to disambiguate, probably as "Archangel, Russia" or "Archangel (city)". Vmenkov (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archangel is more familiar to me as a name, and its the name more likely to turn up in reference books, being older. I'm not clear why all these google searches are so qualified; a straight search for "arkhangelsk" gives 623,000 results, while "archangel russia" (avoiding the 4 million odd other types of archangel) gives 905,000. And I'm not clear about the false positive comment, either; "arkhangelsk" would turn up a host of russian websites, which would be irrelevant in a question about common english usage. So, is this a proposal to move the page to Archangel, under Common names? Xyl 54 (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! I did not try to search on "archangel russia" because I expected it to mostly pull in articles about the cathedrals of this or that archangel, or the Union of Archangel Michael, etc. etc., but it seems that at least within the top 40 results, 80-90% are about Archangel City. And they are not necessarily historic in content either - there is everything, from news pieces to epidemiological studies to hotel reservations. Incidentally, the hit counts ratio for the two spellings on Google Books are pretty similar (something like 2000 vs. 4000), although on Google Books you do get the impression that "Arkhangelsk" is a more "modern" spelling that "Archangel".
As with User:Xyl 54, "Archangel" definitely is the "common" Englsh name for me, along with Bombay or Turfan or Cairo or Turin or Macao or Hong Kong, while Arkhangelsk is up there with the more "authentic" versions such as Mumbay, Turpan, Al-Qahira, or Torino or Macau (or Aomen!?) or Xianggang. This having been said, I personally am comfortable with either: after getting used to reading historical maps of China in half a dozen different transcriptions (and to the Chinese changing names of their cities every 300 years or so, as it seems...), I am not the one to start a holy war about the "best" way to spell a place name. But if you feel that renamed it should be, there should be instructions on Wikipedia:Requested moves about the appropriate place to start a discussion. Vmenkov (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. On the other hand, for really "new news", at least in some contexts,Arrkhangels definitely predominates. Try searching on "Sutyagin Arkhangelsk" vs. "Sutyagin Archangel". Vmenkov (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am Anglo Russian (with distant realtives in Archanglesk so maybe I am biassed) so perhaps can see more points of view

  • The Russian Government and Russian based English Language media uses Archangelsk - It is their country (Peking-Beijing) so this should be the clinching arguement
  • Google Earth Uses Archangelsk
  • Atlases: Philips uses Archangelsk , Times uses Archangel, Collins uses Archangel (Archangelsk) most other maps globes etc that I have seen use Archangelsk
  • Archangelsk is used by most news sources
  • There are numerous other meanings of Archangel but only one Archangelsk

I almost always see this city named as Archangel. I can see the point in using the Russianized form here (as the last person said, "Archangel" means many other things besides a port city on the White Sea), but I still think it's more often rendered as Archangel. Jsc1973 (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single atlas/map I have access to shows this city as Archangel (although I don't have Times and Collins mentioned above). From my experience, the spelling is predominantly used in sources about the history of the city, but even then they switch to "Arkhangelsk" when it comes to describing the city's history from the 20th century on. Could you, please, clarify where it is that you predominantly see the city referred as such? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:25, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, Eugene Helimski, himself Russian, in his 2006 paper on the Finno-Ugric substratum in the Russian North also used Archangel for the city as a matter of course. His English in the paper is impeccable, as far as I can see. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, this looks like yet another case of Wikipedia pushing the peculiar POV that traditional English exonyms are supposedly "outdated". I strongly contest the "formerly" in the intro and propose to replace it by "also" or "traditionally". In fact, "traditionally" sounds like a good compromise because it is ambiguous; I'm using that one. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for name[edit]

What is the reason? I'm thinking I know.--Pubserv (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was named after the monastery which had been located in this area before the city's foundation. The monastery itself was named for Archangel Michael. Hence, "Archangel"→"Arkhangelsk".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 10, 2014; 14:46 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Arkhangelsk → Archangel, Russia – As Florian Blaschke noted above, this article is one of many that has fallen prey to the POV that it's somehow wrong or old-fashioned to translate proper names. This city's English name is Archangel, just as Moskva's is Moscow, Wien's is Vienna, and Dùn Èideann's is Edinburgh. This is how it's referred to by the BBC, the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, and the New York Times. Zacwill16 (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I am sure you noticed this is not the first attempt to move the article. Most of the usage of Archangel in English is from the 1700s. Now it is Arkhangelsk in English, as any map would attest.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is your source for "Most of the usage of Archangel in English is from the 1700s?" if so how do you explain the ngrams listed on this page? Have you seen the Royal Navy Admiralty charts or those of the US Navy if not then how do you know that "any map would attest"? -- PBS (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really hate users who are badgering opposers. Just specially for you: This is not the first and not the second attempt to rename the page. I am not a stranger who have seen a RfC but a user who was watching the page for the last four years. All of this has been previously discussed. Have you looked at Britannica to start with?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only four years (See the section above #Archangel)! To update some of those Google figures:
  • Archangel port site:gov.uk 1,320 results
  • Arkhangelsk port site:gov.uk 20 results
The British Government web sites clearly still favour Archangel
If you make an unequivocal assertion then you ought to be willing to back it up with evidence. After all this is not a vote, but an informed discussion where the consensus emerges through debate. -- PBS (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What the governments favor is of very little consequence, or we would have long moved the article about Kiev to "Kyiv".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 23, 2015; 16:16 (UTC)
Actually, the British Government favour "Kiev":
  • Kyiv site:gov.uk 1,710 results
  • Kiev site:gov.uk 2,830 results -- Zacwill16 (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more of the Canadian government usage (it's an argument that is frequently brought up in the Kiev article move proposals), but that's beyond the point. Government usage is only one of many aspects (and definitely not the most important one) to be considered in choosing an article title.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 24, 2015; 14:51 (UTC)
I do not think there is a single government on the Earth which favors Burma over Myanmar, still, our article is Burma.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Burma is very political, most anglosphere governments favour Burma. The New Zealand Government changed its view in the late naughties from Myanmar to Burma and then back to Myanmar in 2012. The UK and US governments favour Burma (UK foreign office, US state department). That is not really the issue. The issue is that government sites tend to contain reliable sources, and for none political names like Arkhangelsk/Archangel they tend to reflect the usage within their counties. This can be difficult to find particularly for the US who's domain names tend to be used my many non-US sites. -- PBS (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; same reasons. A simple look at pretty much any modern English-language map will show Moscow, Vienna, and Edinburgh, but hardly ever "Archangel", which confirms that the latter is not in the same category (and is indeed prevalent mostly in the literature of old). And the news outlets are quite inconsistent to rely on—BBC, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, NYT.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2015; 20:17 (UTC)
-
-
-
So the BBC favours Archangel, as does the Telegraph, the NYT uses both and the Guardian favours arkhangelsk.-- PBS (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a grossly incorrect statement. I went to see your Guardian Archangel link; on the first page I see ZERO hits: either irrelevant stuff, or historical references, or pre-2004 articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked Archangel in the Telegraph. The same result. I either get historical references, or irrelevant stuff, or pre-2001 links. There was one (out of 40) exception, which user Archangel in 2013 and which seems indeed to talk about the current city. So I am afraid your own links confirm that Archangel is not in use anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ec* As the "Archangel" searches still contain unrelated fluff, I find it amazing that the counts are so close and the samples are so small. This, at best, illustrates mixed, fairly equal usage. Considering other evidence in favor of "Arkhangelsk" and the fact that with things being equal Wikipedia normally goes with the first contributor's choice, there seems to be no compelling reason to move this article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 23, 2015; 16:16 (UTC)
Ymblanter what exactly was it that I wrote that was "grossly incorrect"? -- PBS (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That the usage of Archangel for example by the Telegraph prevails. If we consider it in the sense of the modern name of the city, Arkhangelsk prevails.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you above to justify two of your statements (see "What is your source for ...") which to date you have failed to do. Now you make another statement, that is not backed up by facts. If you look through the searches I did based on User:Ezhiki survey, I deliberately restricted the NYT search to the last 25 years because it included a preponderance older than that favourable to Archangel (1,466, 74). I did not do that for the Telegraph because the earliest date returned in that search was 1999. You sated that I wrote that was "grossly incorrect", but as yet you have not demonstrated that to be true. As for the Telegraph results do you really believe that more that 20 of the results returned for Archangel are not modern sources? If not, then how is it a "grossly incorrect" statement to say that "the BBC favours Archangel, as does the Telegraph"? -- PBS (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try again. You operate by numbers. I go to your links, open the actual hits and see that Arkhangelsk hits are relevant, whereas Archangel hits are not. None of them. I explain that and you come with some other numbers, and in addition you are not happy with my explanation. Why do not you open the first 50 hits yourself and see what is in there? You will easily find that the Archangel hits, with a very few exceptions, are either about smth which is unrelated to the city/port, or are historical references.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at the first one returned in the search. It is referring to a World war II incident, but that is not unusual in a British newspaper it says "four convoys to and from Murmansk and Archangel in Russia's extreme northwest" (note the use of Russia and not the Soviet Union) -- AFAICT it is a piece, published in April of this year, that presents a teaser and simultaneously advertises a book. The fact that there is no need to qualify Archangel with Arkhangelsk means that the term is familiar to their readers as the name of the port. It seems to me that you are presenting a tautology that only those articles that use Arkhangelsk are relevant and that any that use Archangel is not. That is one point of view, but to say that the conclusions I drew are "grossly incorrect" is a breach of civility. I look forward with interest to you answering my questions about two of your statements (see "What is your source for ...") which to date you have failed to do. -- PBS (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if you view it as a breach of civility, but unfortunately I do not. My position instead is that I answered your objections but you did not want to hear, preferring circular reasoning instead.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my previous comment. As to Ymblanter's claim: What? The claim that Archangel was already falling into obsolescence in the 19th century (!!) needs some damn good citations. A quick search on Google Ngrams (Archangel+city, Archangel+Russia vs. Arkhangelsk) does not support this at all, and in fact shows that Arkhangelsk was rare in the 19th century and still is relatively rare. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you take into consideration the fact that the count of "Archangel+Russia" (and, to a lesser degree, of "Archangel+city") is going to be inflated due to the references to archangels in the context of the Russian Orthodox Church and due to the explanations that the etymology Arkhangelsk's name takes root in the word "archangel"? And doesn't entering "Archangel+city" into ngram actually mean finding instances of either "Archangel" and "city", not both terms? (I actually am not sure about this one and would welcome a clarification; this wasn't very helpful).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2015; 20:37 (UTC)
OK, "Archangel+city" is indeed an incorrect ngram term. Consider how these (and also these) two graphs are nearly identical—it clearly is counting all texts which have the word "city" and adds the texts with another term to it. The plus sign in ngram seems to serve as the logical OR, not as the logical AND.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2015; 20:59 (UTC)
I ran Ngrams with other phrases to tease out the geographical meaning ("city of Arkhangelsk" vs. "city of Archangel" here and "in Arkhangelsk" vs. "in Archangel" here). Archangel seems marginally more common. —  AjaxSmack  01:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In Archangel" is still catching unrelated fluff ("in Archangel Michael's ability", "I've given in, Archangel..!", etc.). Things like that will eat up into the margin, and even if the two usages are equally common, there's still the fact that BGN/PCGN guidelines list "Arkhangel'sk" as the preferred choice and "Archangel" (as well as "Archangel'sk") only as acceptable variants (one can check this here). This is the main reason why you won't easily find a modern map which shows the city as "Archangel" and surely an indicator of which variant is more common in modern times.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 23, 2015; 16:16 (UTC)
Souces from 2014 and 2015 that use Archangel: [8] [9] Zacwill16 (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bold statement In ictu oculi what did you use as your sample and why a sample of five years and not 25 years? -- PBS (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is a better title, not to be confused with Archangels in Russian culture -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I find it very difficult to believe anyone could see "Archangel, Russia", and think it was talking about Russian archangels. Maybe if it was "Archangel (Russia)". Zacwill16 (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support more common usage among reliable sources. The port does not get mentioned much in current affairs, by far the most common usage that most English language speakers are going to come across the port is in the history of the Atlantic convoys and Google convoy+archangel+-wikipedia returns 1,430, Google convoy+Arkhangelsk+-wikipedia 378. As an ngram with convoy Arkhangelsk is a non-starter. -- PBS (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, this must be the least convincing and most tenuous reason so far. All this proves is that "Archangel" would be a good choice for an article about the convoys, not necessarily about the city. As for "the port does not get mentioned much in current affairs", are you serious? 10,600 news hits for Arkhangelsk, which is quite a bit by itself ("Archangel", unqualified, with not one relevant hit on the first page of results, only returns twice as much!) Are you realy saying that there is nothing important to be said about a city of 350,000 people in the Extreme North, besides the history of Atlantic convoys?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 23, 2015; 16:16 (UTC)
    Having looked through the initial couple of pages of "10,600 news hits" it seems to me that most of them do not even meet reliable source requirements or are in foreign languages. For those which might scrape in as reliable sources, eg the Moscow Times how many readers does such a "newspaper" have in the Anglosphere? Clearly there are news reports about Archangel as is shown by the newspapers I surveyed above (eg the Guardian with the largest number, has had about four in the last year (those other thee, without a highlight, do not have a mention in their text -- perhaps it was in links to to other articles since changed). Of your "10,600 news hits" which do you consider to be the most comprehensive article by a reliable source? -- PBS (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Who said anything about these being reliable sources??? I thought we are discussing generic coverage. The point I was making is that every single result on the first page in the 10,600 "Arkhangelsk" set mentions the city, one way or another; reliable source or not. In the 21,000 "Archangel" set, not a single result on at least the first three pages of results has to do with the city. That alone is an illustration that, overall, the "Arkhangelsk" spelling of the city name is more common than "Archangel", no? As for the truly reliable sources, we've covered that in the ngram experiments above, and once you properly account for unrelated hits (music albums, fictional fantasy beings/Church doctrine, etc.) there is no evidence there that the "Archangel" spelling is more common either.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 24, 2015; 12:23 (UTC)
    Generic coverage was abandon in June 2008 when WP:AT moved from surveying all sources to just reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    May I ask how you arrived at the conclusion that "Archangel" is English but "Arkhangelsk" is not? Both are commonly used, as demonstrated above; the question is whether the "Archangel" variant is overwhelmingly more common, and so far no one has been able to convincingly demonstrate it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 24, 2015; 12:26 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

As I said above, government sources while not always reliable, but they do contain a lot of reliable sources, and for non-political names such as Archangel/Arkhangelsk tend to reflect common usage within their countries:

  • Archangel port site:gov.uk 1,320 results
  • Arkhangelsk port site:gov.uk 20 results

The US is more balanced but favours Archangel:

With so many results it is worth checking for joint usage, but the results for that are confusing, Arkhangelsk drops by 200, while Archangel goes up by about 500!

  • Archangel port site:gov.au about 8,460
  • Arkhangelsk port site:gov.au about about 102 results

These tend to show that among the countries in the Anglosphere government websites tend to favour Archangel on a search that includes "port" to try to remove false positives to birds and churches. -- PBS (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • RN Admiralty charts use "Arkhangel'sk" (see Admiralty Notices to Mariners (PDF) (Weekly 44 ed.), Published on the UKHO Website (20 October 2014), 30 October 2014, p. 7 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) ) -- PBS (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

500 Ruble Note[edit]

If you want to revert to discuss matters, the normal course of events is to revert to the last stable consensus, which I have now done.

Many sources state it is the STS Sedov on the 500 Ruble note [10], [11]. [12] based on this source, Insider has been going around Wikipedia asserting as fact it is the Argentine ship ARA Libertad. In the interview, the interviewer puts the suggestion to the original artist that according to Internet rumours it is the Libertad, the artist states he simply sketched a sailing ship from a photograph and dridicules such suggestion of "secret signs" or gaffes. The Russian bank site simply describes it as a sailing ship [13].

If you want to simply suggest it is a sailing boat, fine, it loses something to my mind but thats better than turning wikipedia into a repository of idle speculation on the Internet. WCMemail 21:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what your grievance is about this revert of mine. You are absolutely right about Libertad—the MK's article is not a sufficient source to support that statement (just as none of the sources you included are sufficiently reliable to support the Sedov version), but my revert is to Insider's version which does not mention it; it only mentions a "sailing ship" (with a source to CBR). That is exactly what you seem to be proposing above, yet you rolled the article back to the version predating the dispute? Would you mind clarifying your position, please?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 1, 2015; 21:49 (UTC)
Who said I had a grievance? Actually I'd like help to find better sources that this is the Sedov, I would be prepared to compromise to the above but feel the article loses something if it is in fact the Sedov. I rolled back to the version predating the dispute as the correct thing to do, nothing more. WCMemail 22:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are being overly bureaucratic, it seems :) Rolling to the version predating the dispute is generally the right thing to do, but in this case none of the three parties involved seem to have a problem with this version, and it's clearly an improvement over the unsourced version, so why not leave that while we are working on finding other/better sources?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 2, 2015; 14:26 (UTC)
Yes, possibly being a little overly bureaucratic, possibly just cranky. You can revert to your version if you like. WCMemail 15:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will do; thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 2, 2015; 15:17 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure). sst✈(conjugate) 13:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Arkhangelsk → Archangel, Russia – (There's a summary at the end if you're in a hurry).

The RM from last summer was frankly appalling. I'm proposing that that statements of fact which are plain false and unsupported and unsupportable be pointed out vigorously.

Google Ngrams, which searches for a match for a phrase in a very whole lot of books which Google has digitized is different. Looking there I get... well, first of all, let's start a half-century ago at 1966, if we start before then then Archangel just utterly clobbers Arkhangelsk, and let's be generous and say anything older than a half-century is archaic. So we get:

I used these phrases because the single word "Archangel" brings in far too much noise.

"Archangel" leads the pack so far...but the trend is toward "Arkhangelsk", granted its gonna be a couple-plus decades for Arkhangelsk to catch up... note also that the "City of Arkhangelsk" in The Very Reliable Oxford Britannica Royal King's Map Atlas of Very Important Places counts equally to "City of Archangel" in White Sea Tramp: My Life as a Dock Whore... although we hope these things even out, we're looking a fairly small sample sizes. So the Ngrams aren't decisive... they are very important data points tho. The ball is in the "Arkhangelsk" camp's red zone I'd say... and I haven't seen any strong arguments from them, yet.

Here's the other thing, though. Most names (including names of places) are not translatable. They're just names. (Many have etymologies that with some digging devolve to actual things, common nouns and adjectives, but not immediately, and that's way different.) For instance: the largest city inside the Arctic Circle is Мурманск. This transliterates to, approximately, Murmansk. That's it, you can't go any further, because Murmansk doesn't mean anything. It's just a name.

Some places're different. Archangel's one. It's an English word flat out. I believe that some people's opinion is "We can only transliterate most place names, therefore we must only transliterate all place names". Because... IDK, foolish consistency? Slavish following of pseudo-intellectual posturing by academic geographers? PC gone amok -- "yet another case" of editors pushing the peculiar POV that long-used traditional English exonyms are inherently suspect as being outdated, even perhaps vaguely sinister leftovers of colonialism?

Dunno.

Drive you nuts. People wanting me to transliterate "Центральный округ" as "Tsentralny Okrug" instead of translating it as "Central District", which after all increases information density -- it tells the reader the name of the place as understood by the natives, namely in this case that the district is the center of the city, useful info IMO if you are reading about it!

Do not want.

For this reason I'd like to see a lot better arguments for "Arkhangelsk", otherwise let's move.

(For background, the reason this is a problem is that Russian is a lot more inflected than English, with suffixes that we don't have in English; we'd say "Missouri River" and they'd say "River belongs-to-Missouri" (sort of). That's what the "ьск" in "Архангельск" -- the "sk" in "Arkhangelsk" -- is, sort of (I simplify). It's the "of" in "City of Archangel".)

Yes, there's a counter-argument: "Arkhangelsk" is a closer approximation than "Archangel" of the sounds that escape from the lips of the natives when you point to their city and ask "What's that called"? This is true. However, I don't much care about that; this is the English-language Wikipedia, and IMO it's a lot more useful for the reader to know that the city has the same name as those powerful heavenly creatures. It's increased information density. (Most readers can probably infer "Arkhangelsk" == "Archangel", but 1) some can't, like ESL readers, and 2) it's not our job to make the reader have to infer or dig her way to knowledge when its not necessary.)

Summary for you TL;DRers

OK to summarize. Usually by far the most important factor is preponderance of notable sources. Here's where we are.

  1. I dunno what the Big Boys say about the matter. My Times Atlas of World History uses Archangel. That's all I've got. There's plenty of discussion above in Talk:Arkhangelsk#Archangel where it's claimed that Philips (whoever he is) uses Archangelsk, Collins (whoever he is) has Archangel, and there's much else. Anybody else have info that'd be great.
  2. Google Ngram says books, aggregated together, prefer "Archangel" to "Arkhangelsk", by what I guess is a non-insignificant ratio.
  3. Google Books (not regular Google websearch) give 185,000 to 27,000 preponderance to Archangel Russia over Arkhangelsk Russia. Unlike regular Google search this may have some significance I think.
  4. And if in your opinion there's not enough of preponderance of notable sources to decide the matter and you want to fall back on other arguments some of which appear above, I don't see them as being particularly strong. Therefore, move. Herostratus (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

With all due respect, almost everything you've written is just objectively wrong or not germane. I've shown the Google Ngram which demonstrates that Archangel is preferred in books. I've shown that Google Books prefers "Archangel Russia" to "Arkhangelsk Russia" by 6.8:1 (and WP:Requested Moves says "If your reasoning includes search engine results, please present Google Books or Google News Archive results before providing other web results" so I infer Google Books has at least some standing.) Looking at what I have on hand here -- granted this is anecdotal, but it's legit to count up anecdotes, I have the West Point Atlas of American Wars (in the World War II section, Napoleon was dead by then) with "Archangel". Gee, official publication of West Point, used in their classes... nahhhhhh, that's just some hick college, right?
The Guardian, phhht. They probably think anything other than "Архангельск" is impure, neo-colonialist, and even racist bwana-speak, but they have to hold to their nose and use Latin characters to cater to their lower-grade readers who only have master's degrees. The Daily Mail, double phhht. Your Napoleon argument comes down to "They called it Archangel in the days of Napoleon, therefore we can't" which... is not a strong argument.
Since you don't have any arguments -- I mean not just bad arguments, but basically no arguments -- hopefully the person closing the RM will ignore your comment. Sorry if that seems harsh (your work here is generally excellent IMO BTW) but trying to move forward here. Herostratus (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually YOU who ignores the main argument - that Archangel is a historical usage, and Arkhangelsk is a modern one, wasting our time yet again.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't really see any new arguments in addition to those raised in the previous RM. The main problem here is that both google books and ngram hits are heavily contaminated to references to archangels in a context of the Russian Orthodox church, most of which have nothing to do with the name of the city. And modern usage predominantly (although, I agree, not exclusively) favors "Arkhangelsk", which is no wonder, since it conforms to the BGN/PCGN romanization system, a de facto standard in the English-speaking countries.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 26, 2016; 14:13 (UTC)
But the thing is, essentially there were no arguments against raised in the previous RM, not arguments backed by anything useful or worthy of much consideration. The previous RM was closed poorly and it looks like the closer just took a headcount, which I call on the person closing the RM to consider positions backed by facts and numbers and cogent argument and not just take a headcount again, thank you very much.
I controlled for the bias you bring up by comparing phrases such as "City of Archangel" and "Port of Archangel" against "City of Arkhangelsk" and "Port of Arkhangelsk".
Again, with all due respect, I get a lot of flack from other Russians (you are Russian I infer) which IMO comes down to "Please always transliterate and never translate if ever possible, because that serves and pleases me as a Russian speaker". Well with all due respect we're not here to please and serve Russian speakers and I don't care about them. I care about English readers and especially ESL readers in India and Kenya and Brazil and whatever. It's them we're here to serve. I prefer translating when possible, so that the reader can draw meaning from the text, to priggery regarding someone's romanization system. Anyway that system only comes into play when it's already been decided that you won't translate the name, which I haven't seen a good argument for deciding that.
I wish you hadn't made it personal; doing so only diminishes your arguments, even when you pepper your accusations with "all due respect". To the matter at hand, yes, it is "please always transliterate and never translate", but that has nothing to do with what Russian speakers want but everything to do with the standards which are followed in the English language (I refer you back to the BGN/PCGN romanization, which is what is predominantly used in modern English-language works and which, I should note, was not developed by Russians but by the native English speakers, to be used in English). Furthermore, if you looked at more than one example, you'd quickly realize that "translation" of toponyms is a slippery slope towards original research. Sure, on the surface it makes sense to translate, say, "Oktyabrsky" as "October", until you realize that not every place called "Oktyabrsky" is called after "October" and might in fact be two steps removed from that meaning. Transliteration has no such problem, while the nuances of translation can (and should) be dealt in the Etymology section. On the other hand, "Archangel" is not a translation of "Архангельск"; it is one of the acceptable variants, albeit not the primary one (as the BGN/PCGN database would confirm). No one here is trying to convince you that "Archangel" is incorrect (indeed, it might be preferable to use it in certain historical contexts), but the title of the Wikipedia article should follow modern usage, which is exactly what it currently does.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 26, 2016; 18:07 (UTC)
Well, yes, I get your point about slippery slopes. However, most slopes aren't slippery.You need not ban activities because they might at some some lead you down a slope, because if that happens 'then you stop.
Translation's hard. It's an art and it's easy to fall into error, yes. Still, most of the time you can find your way through. It's not sensible to be afraid of it cos we're here to impart information not obfuscate it.
Etymology section... we're dealing with the article title here, we ought to get it right, it matters. I dunno, I'm not a college boy and a lot of readers aren't too. You know, like at Gangut-class battleship we have the Gangut renamed as Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya and IMO that's just pedantic priggery. It's based on, for one thing, complete (and actually kind of willful) blindness to the fact that very many of our readers cannot puff their pipe and go "oh, jolly good, Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya, they named her for the October Revolution, pip pip." To a lot of readers Oktyabrskaya Revolyutsiya carries no more meaning than Uasdljfkosu Yxcsdops. So let's stop this. We're here to impart information not obfuscate it. When we can, let's. Herostratus (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Sorry to say this, but this is not the first instance where we have to waste time on this.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not an argument. Herostratus (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not an argument. Herostratus (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and introduce moratorium. Waste of time. Even if the two terms come about even in the current usage (a finding which the presented data seem to support), WP:NATURAL comes into play: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title.. "Arkhangelsk" does not require disambiguation, Archangel does. No such user (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, an actual argument. Let's discuss it in the "Discussion" section below.

Discussion[edit]

In all fairness, I have one other atlas at hand, it's Barnes & Noble's Geographica and it uses, not Arkhangelsk but rather Arkhangel'sk which is essentially the same (different systems treat "ъ" differently). We can keep looking at these. They matter, some. So far I have

  • "Archangel": Times (and Times Historical), West Point, Collins (who?).
  • "Arkhangelsk": Philips (who?), Barnes & Noble.

Looking at News (WP:RM seems to countenance using Google News), I get:

city of Archangel -- 16,500
city of Arkhangelsk -- 3,110 (big win for Archangel)

port of Archangel -- 2,320
port of Arkhangelsk -- 2,480 (statistical tie)

"city of Archangel" (that is, that exact phrase) - 44
"city of Arkhangelsk" (that is, that exact phrase) - 232 (big win for Arkhangelsk, albeit w low data)

BUT

Archangel Russia -- 2,890 Arkhangelsk Russia -- 5,370 but not only that, a lot of the "Archangels" (but not the "Arkhangelsks") here are angels and churches and whatnot, so this could be a bigger "win" for Arkhangelsk than that... we see

  • Time magazine: "Arkhangelsk region"
  • the Advocate (!): "Russian city of Arkhangelsk"
  • Hellenic Shipping News": "Russian northern port of Arkhangelsk"
  • TASS: "general cargo vessel Ivan Bobrov detained on January 1 in Denmark because of drunken crew members".... heh oops I mean "ARKHANGELSK" (dateline).... well, TASS... probably should discount Russian sources, generally...
  • Fishing News International: "Russia’s Arkhangelsk region"
  • Huffington Post: "city of Arkhangelsk"
  • Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty: "Arkhangelsk region"
  • The Guardian and Daily Mail we already know
  • etc.... it goes on

while

  • The Forecaster (a distinctly tiny small-town paper): "firefighters from Archangel arrived"
  • WCSH (a medium-size-city TV station): "sister city relationship between Greater Portland and Archangel"
  • Maine's NPR site: "Archangel, Russia"
  • but to be honest it tends to peter out...

OTOH, looking at the exact phrase "city of Archangel":

  • Daily Mail: "city of Archangel"... so there's your Daily Mail... at best they can't make up their minds or don't apply their style book very rigorously
  • New York Times "Opinionator" blog: "city of Archangel". Yes it's a blog but its the NYTimes and watched a lot more closely than some random person's blog... how rigorously they enforce their style book on the "Opinionator" I don't know.
  • Portland [Maine] Press-Herald: "Archangel, Russia"
  • The Express, a UK paper: "city of Archangel"
  • Telecompaper (a telcom industry paper): "Archangel"
  • Worker's World: "Russian city of Archangel" (I was always told, if it's in the Worker's World it must be true...)

"city of Arkhangelsk" only gets the Washington Times (despite the nice name, it's basically a smallish hack rag): "northern city of Arkhangelsk" before starting to repeat.

Some (most, I guess) of this supports the requested move. Some works against it. It's just data and I'm laying it out. It's not all the data or the end of the data. It's useful data. Herostratus (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:TITLE

An editor brought up WP:TITLE, specifically WP:NATURAL which argues the benefit of natural disambiguation: if the article is titled "Arkhangelsk" the reader goes right there, no need for going through the steps Archangel --> Archangel (disambiguation) --> Archangel, Russia.

Yeah but we have redirects. You just have Arkhangelsk as a redirect to Archangel, Russia. People who are inclined to think of the city as "Arkhangelsk" are still taken right there, while people who think of it as "Archangel" will have a better time of it...

Well anyway I guess I know WP:TITLE pretty well, I spend scores of hours parsing both the literal meaning and intended spirit of every word for this close, ~8500 words of close reasoning over the placement of a comma. Drawing on my experience and knowledge of WP:TITLE, what I'd say is this:

The heart of WP:TITLE is the"Five Virtues" of titles:

  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
  • Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
  • Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.

My opinion -- it's a personal opinion, but it's held strongly and after very much review of the meaning and intent of WP:TITLE -- is that all of the Five Virtues matter, but some matter a bit more. In particular, Naturalness is important, but is not so very important because of the existence of redirects. Here, for instance, we can create a redirect for "Arkhangelsk" which takes the reader searching on that term to "Archangel, Russia" (and, admittedly, vice versa). And futhermore, s

  • Recognizability – Well, "Arkhangelsk" vs. "Archangel, Russia"... I can't say for sure which is more recognizable. I'll talk about this below.
  • Naturalness – Most likely search term. This is sort of what's under discussion. Again, let's say a tie.
  • Precision – Well, "Archangel, Russia" is more precise than either "Arkhangelsk" or "Archangel", at the cost of concision.

Conciseness – Well... "Arkhangelsk" is shorter. It is more concise, at the cost of precision. (I mean, I came to this page because I was looking for Soviet battleship Arkhangelsk (incidentally, I was unable to find it, but that's really the ship people's

  • Consistency – Well, going down the list by population... we have Moscow not Moskva, Saint Petersburg not Sankt-Peterburg, but then Novosibirsk which is the native name, Yekaterinburg not Catherineburg, Nizhny Novgorod not Lower New City... and ditto on down the line (some are just meaningless names) but then Rostov-on-Don not Rostov-na-Donu, but then Volgograd rather than Volga City... there's no consistency here, except we are (properly) probably going with the most common names in English sources. I can't find "consistency" as doing anything other than throwing us back to looking for the preponderance of English sources....

So, precision favors "Archangel, Russia" while conciseness favors "Arkhangelsk", and the others are more or less a draw. So moving forward, if I may quote myself from 2013:

title
And here's something interesting (from WP:TITLE: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." (emphasis added.) To stretch that out and informalize it a bit, the passage could be restated like this: "Remember when we said 'article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources'? Well, we mainly did that because what we really want is the 'most recognizable and most natural' titles, and reliable sources almost by definition provide that. (After all, it's practically impossible to image a case where a clear preponderance of many reliable sources called a place by a certain name, yet significant numbers of readers did not recognize that name.)" This makes sense, and it explains an important reason why we go by preponderance of sources, I think.

So. There are two reasons for using commonly recognizable names:

  1. So the reader can find the page, ("natural"), and
  2. So the reader, when she has found the page, quickly and accurately perceives what it's about ("recognizable").

And those are the Two Virtues that really matter. And readers will find the page as easily as before if we use a redirect. So what's really important is to maximize the percentage of readers that can see the title and know what the article is about about without having to actually delve article. (There are various reasons why that's important, but we can all agree on that I think).

There's little question that "Archangel, Russia" does that hella better than "Arkhangelsk" because:

  1. Admittedly at considerable cost in conciseness, it describes the subject more precisely.
  2. IMO it's the term most use used in atlases and books (although admittedly current news sources are mixed bag, not so clear). We know this because of the Ngrams. That's even true of books published in the 2010's, although the trend is closing the gap. This is not subject to debate (although it's possible that the most popular books and most used atlases use "Arkhangelsk", but we have no reason at this time to think that that's true.)

IMO if you gave 100 random readers (so remember, we're including 15-year-olds, and people in Nigeria with limited English, and just generally people who aren't As Smart As You) a slip of paper with "Arkhangelsk" on it, and 100 random readers a slip with "Archangel, Russia" and asked them what the article with that name was probably about, you'd get a better response with the latter. Can't prove this but that's how I read the numbers. Herostratus (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR and not an argument.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes TLDR applies. In this case, since I'm being detailed rather than prolix, it devolves to devolves to "I lack the acuity to follow these arguments". Not something to be proud of, I'd say. (Granted, my last paragraph you can dismiss if you like; but not most of the rest.) Herostratus (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is time we used the proper Russian form as Arkhangelsk or Arkhangel'sk, and broke with inaccurate away-from-Russia forms, the same as a while ago for Helsingør in Denmark we settled for the proper Danish form and broke with the inaccurate form Elsinore got via Shakespeare. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good argument. If this was the Russian Wikipedia. It's not. It's for English speakers. "Proper Russian form" has, quite literally, absolutely and totally nothing to do with the article title (it should be discussed, but in the article body, probably in the lede). We go by English sources, which is why the article "Moscow" is not named "Mockva" (probably to your disgust, I suppose). Sheesh, maybe we should name the article Арха́нгельск and be done with it. After all, "Arkhangelsk" is a crude and inaccurate rendering of ɐrˈxanɡʲɪlʲsk.
Anyway, I get it. Ideology is in play here IMO. I don't know the answer to these questions, and I'm willing to be convinced by data. And the data is not entirely clear. It looks to me to somewhat favor "Archangel". I may be wrong.
I can't argue with people who have ideologies rather than data. In closing, I call upon the person closing the RM to boldly do the right thing. It's not a count of heads. Herostratus (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arkhangelsk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Arkhangelsk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arkhangelsk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old image from a Turkish magazine[edit]

I wonder where a higher quality version of this image is https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129156/56/PFSIF9170201117.jpg

From Servet-i Funun WhisperToMe (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arkhangelsk&oldid=1216889518"