Jump to content

Talk:Brest region

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

The region was formed in 1939 after reunification of Western Belarus and the Byelorussian SSR

[edit]

It's a POV statement. My POV is - the region was occupied by the SU 1939-1941, Germany 1941-1944 and annexed to the Byelorussian SSR. Tens of rhousands of Poles were expelled, deported to Siberia, killed.Xx236 07:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Administrative divisions of Belarus which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 17:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brest Region. 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) 06:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brest Region. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 December 2024

[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a consensus to move all Belarusian region articles to lowercase "region", per WP:NCCAPS and sources. (closed by non-admin page mover) Toadspike [Talk] 12:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Region is not part of the proper name of regions of Belarus, and is typically lowercase in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat/stress/underline/emphasize: "Brest Region" is the name of the region, i.e., it is a proper name as a whole. In Ru/Be/Uk in geographical names the class words ("river", lake, ocean, oblast), etc. are not capitalized, but they are still proper names. For comparison in English we capitalize all words in the proper name, i.e., we write the Order of Suvorov, but in Russian it is "orden Suvorova". See, "orden" is not capitalized, but it does not mean that here the proper name is "Suvorova". Same with Pacific Ocean which is ru:Тихий океан. This is a source of plenty of confusion especially is obscure subject. For exzample a reservoir by tyhe city of Kashira is called "Kashirskoe vodohranilishce", which is Kashira Reservoir (no article ?:-), not Kashirsk Reservoir (Kashirskoe Reservoir is clumsy but is usable). --Altenmann >talk 23:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proper nouns are linguistically common across languages regardless of whether they have a written form or case distinction and whether written or spoken. With the exception of German (which capitalises all nouns), European languages are much more rigorous than English in that they tend to only capitalise proper nouns, while English often uses capitalisation for emphasis or distinction as well as for proper names. Unfortunately, many native English speakers treat capitalisation and proper nouns as being equivalent when they are not and justify capitalisation by labeling terms that they would capitalise as being proper nouns, whether they are or not. For example, other languages would capitalise England because it is a proper noun but not English, because it is not. Similarly other languages would not capitalise a descriptor in a noun phrase such as Brest R|region (not just Russian, Belarussian or Ukrainian) because the proper noun is Brest but the descriptor is inherently not a proper noun. In some cases, descriptors are consistently capitalised in English (such as Pacific Ocean) but not because ocean is a proper noun or it is part of a proper noun phrase. The consistency with which such descriptors are capitalised vary (compare ngrams for the Sahara Desert and the Pacific Ocean) but the proper nouns (Sahara and Pacific) are capitalised with near universal consistency because they are proper nouns. The rationalisation being made between Brest region and Brest Region is one of emphasis or distinction not one based on whether one is a proper noun phase and the other not. One cannot "hear" such a distinction in speech yet proper nous|names are recognised in speech and writing. Your rationalisation is flawed since it is based on a simplistic and incorrect perception of what a proper noun|name is and a false equivalence between capitalisation and proper nouns. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your speech is fine with four important errors when it comes to specifics. Your rationalisation is flawed since it is based on a simplistic and incorrect perception of what a proper noun. Proper noun and proper name are different terms. "A proper name is the name for a specific place, person, or thing" - please explain what is wrong with this standard definition. Second, even Wikipedia says In modern English orthography, it is the norm for recognized proper names to be capitalized. (with reference cited). Third, I repeated this already and unfortunately I have to repeat this for you, because it looks like you didn't read the discussion above: "Brest region" and "Brest Region" are different things. And in none of them "region" is a descriptor, but the main element of the nominal phrase which identifies a category of objects (whatever the linguistic term for it may be), while "Brest" is a specifier, which identifies a particular object in the category. (Of course, this construction does not make the phrase proper name: there may be White Flower and white flower). English with its way with nouns is confusing even for native speakers, but in Belarusian the distinction is clear: it is "Brestskaya oblast", with "Brestskaya" being an adjective, so it is evident what specifies what. --Altenmann >talk 17:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a technical distinction between a proper noun and a proper name in that, a noun is a single word while a name is a noun phrase consisting of one or more words; however, in practice proper noun is often used without making this technical distinction. In modern English orthography, it is the norm for recognized proper names to be capitalized. This does not mean that the exclusive use of capitalisation is for proper nouns and the point I make is that there are other uses. A proper name is the name for a specific place, person, or thing is a somewhat simplistic working definition that suffices in many cases. A more complete definition is given by the Collins Dictionary: a noun that is not normally preceded by an article or other limiting modifier, as any or some, and that is arbitrarily used to denote a particular person, place, or thing without regard to any descriptive meaning the word or phrase may have. This coincides with our own article which states that a proper noun is not descriptive - eg Princess White Flower is not a flower that is white. While specificity is a property of a proper noun|name it is not a defining property since specificity can be achieved by application of the definite article (the) and other modifiers (eg adjectives). As a technical point, in Brest R|region, Brest is called an attributive noun. In referring to region I have called it a descriptor, in that it is a noun that describes a category of items - sometimes called a common noun or appelative. In essence though, we do not disagree - Brest modifies R|region (often in conjunction with the) to give a specific referent, though not a proper noun phrase comparable with White Flower. You would argue (define) a distinction between Brest Region and Brest region. This is a case of using caps for emphasis or distinction per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS - which is another use of caps in English not generally used in other languages. Nor does such a distinction exist in spoken English (eg using a text reader). This differentiation does not make the capitalised term a proper name nor does it mean that capitalisation is necessary per MOS:CAPS. The confusing issue in English is the misperceived equivalence between proper noun and capitalisation and the attempt to rationalise any use of capitalisation as a proper noun.
It is because of these perceptions that MOS:CAPS does not attempt to rationalise what a proper noun is but relies on consistent use in sources to determine when capitalisation is necessary. My support for this move is based in two parts. Usage in the native language indicates this is not a true proper noun. Secondly, usage in English language sources is mixed and does not show that capitalisation is necessary. One might argue that Brest region and Brest Region have different meanings as you do. One could then argue that whenever a source uses Brest Region, they are referring to the geopolitical region while Brest region refers to the area generally surrounding the city of Brest with no defined boundary. This then become a circular argument unless one can clearly show that multiple sources are clearly and specifically making such a distinction because of the fuller context in the sources. Just because such an argument is (remotely) possible doesn't mean that it is probable. Per DL below, the argument has been tendered without evidence. It is not substantiated. On the other hand, the evidence by DL below shows that such a distinction is not being made. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your erudite arguments, both of you, are fine, but per MOS:CAPS we look for consistent capitalization in sources. If Altenmann can show that "Brest region" fairly consistently refers to something different than "Brest Region", I'd accept that the topic here is consistently capitalized. But that's not what I see. Books with "Brest region" seem to still talk about districts and boundaries and other named regions, like this one and this one, so I don't so far accept that "Brest region" and "Brest Region" are different topics. Dicklyon (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
erutite arguments -- Thank you for the appreciqtion :-). I thoroughly fail to see now Ngram can possibly beat rules of English language. In English proper names are capitalized. Period. (If there are exceptions, show me the English Grammar book) See Category:Landforms of the United States: mountains. lakes, plateaus, reefs, creeks, counties, forsets, even forests, for God's sake. --Altenmann >talk 04:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The n-grams are just one way to get some stats on source usage. It's not definitive or infallible or beating any rules, just one source of data. Looking into the books is always a good supplement (and especially for terms too rare to be included in the n-gram stats). Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the last few years of RM discussions at WT:MOSCAPS#Concluded. In almost every case where the consensus interpretation of MOS:CAPS was to use lowercase, there was someone in there arguing "it's a proper name". But that argument only holds up when it can be shown that sources consistently capitalize it. In so many cases, sources don't, contradicting the argument "it's a proper name". We don't have a theoretical way to answer that, but rather an empirical way, per guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "no theoretical way?" Do English grammar books say that proper names are capitalized or they do not? --Altenmann >talk 06:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably they do. I don't disagree. But we have no theoretical way to say what's a proper name, or what's the sort of proper name that ought to be capitalized in English, if some of those grammars allow alternatives. Dicklyon (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no theoretical way to say what's a proper name we do have an unambiguous definition of what is a proper name: the name that uniquely identifies the named object. --Altenmann >talk 07:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of definition has been widely debunked and rejected over many RM discussions over the years. Are you actually finding such a definition in a grammar book somewhere? Dicklyon (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thoroughly humbled by this book, Theory and Typology of Proper Names and recluse myself from further discussion, feeling a complete ignoramus :-). Altenmann 18:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Altenmann, I once too had such an epiphany. Something good has come from this discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-RM discussion

[edit]

Since we have decided to move the region articles, what are we going to do about the district articles? It is going to look strange if we say that a settlement is in Minsk District, Minsk region etc. Mellk (talk) 05:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely. Considering how many other countries' districts, regions, provinces, etc. have been downcased, I expect it's not controversial. But then my expectations don't always hold. You want to do an RM discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I think that would be a good idea. Mellk (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Talk:Minsk District#Requested move 25 December 2024. Merry Christmas from Sydney. Dicklyon (talk) 08:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brest_region&oldid=1265133382"