Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Tuva task force

Task force of Central Asia?

Wouldn't this group make more sense as a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia? John Carter (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It could actually belong to both. Tuva has many historical ties with the rest of Central Asia more so than with Russia and several Tuvans I know consider Tuva as part of Central Asia. (The "Center of Asia" monument after all stands in Kyzyl.) Russian association only began during the 1700s and wasn't complete until a few hundred years later. I'm not necessarily a big fan of categorizing things based upon modern geography so I don't see this as a "one or the other" question. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning for proposing as a part of Russia is that, well, that project is right now the clearer "parent", as it is part of that country. A joint task force of the two would also be potentially an acceptable idea, but, just as a personal preference, I would personally think it might be preferable to try to use the Russia banner for this group, as at this point anything related to Tuva would qualify, given that area's current political association, as within the scope of WikiProject Russia and its related projects, while there might, potentially, be questions about how relevant some of those articles might be to Central Asia. Also, it might, in a few cases, help reduce banner clutter. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems like it can go any way. Check out Category:Tuva. The major articles are tagged with both project banners. Some are tagged only by WPCA and some by WPRussia. Some by neither. *shrug* Being a member of WPCA and not WPRussia, it was natural to me to start it at WPCA, but I'm not adverse to doing this under WPRussia. WPCA had been tagging Tuva-related articles because they tend to use the larger UNESCO definition of "Central Asia" which includes Tuva and other "Central Asian portions of Russia". See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Central_Asia/Archive_1#geographic_scope. Others should weigh in on this proposal. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Tuvinian People's Republic and ASSR proposed moves

See Talk:Tuvinian People's Republic#Requested move --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Task force articles

FYI: All the Tuva-related articles I could find are grouped now under Category:Tuva task force. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tes Khem

Hi, we were wondering whether Tes Khem is the Russian or the Tuvan name (or both) for Tesiin Gol. Are you guys able to sort this out?

Sure. Khem is Tuvan for river. --155.246.5.121 (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tuva task force

Template:Tuva task force has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Mongols

I feel that WikiProject Mongols is too specific a project to be the parent of the Tuva Task Force. For example, there's no reason to me why an article like Por-Bazhyn would be considered part of Mongol history and culture. That structure was believed to have been built by the Uyghurs. I am not opposed to more general WikiProjects such as WikiProject Russia or WPCA, although I question why the Dukha article was added to WikiProject Russia since the Dukha live in Mongolia. I'd prefer there to be more support for any move. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Shringley and Co. are trying to recreate WP Mongols after their very Chinese-centred image, moving around pages without any respect for consent and just trying to overpower those editors present. Tuva does have some relations to Mongols, but the Tuva people are Turks. So WPCA seems to be one quite feasible option. But this move has to be undone. G Purevdorj (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I would prefer if we keep the discussion visible. I think there are some Tuva articles that definitely would be of interest to WikiProject Mongols. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the inclusion of Tuvan articles like Por-Bazhyn, Administrative divisions of Tuva, and Tyva Kyzy etc is controversial, and Shringley's move was indeed kind of unilateral and also likely to be disputed. I had also left a message in his talk page to strongly recommend him to discuss properly before any such move. On the other hand yes I also agree with Sborsody to try to keep the discussion visible. It's not a good idea to explicitly assume or publish others' background even if some of the moves were considered unilateral and/or controversial (which I oppose too), not to mention that such self-analysis or description (e.g. the alleged image or overpower editors etc) may be completely wrong or even deliberately made up, the worst of which is to deliberately link different (and probably largely unrelated and having completely different interests) people together. Once again, everyone please try to keep the discussion visible as Sborsody had mentioned, thanks! --Chinyin (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Transliteration of Tuvan Language

Transliteration of the Tuvan language has remained an ongoing problem on the English Wikipedia and I wish to solicit input from those who have worked on WP:RUS, WP:MON, and others. In practice, naming conventions of Tuvan locations and people have followed transliteration rules at WP:RUS. The problem arises though when transliterating the Tuvan language on pages such as Men – Tyva Men and Tooruktug Dolgay Tangdym (also see the Mongolian national anthem transliteration) because there's no existing standard for transliterating the Cyrillic characters that are extraneous to WP:RUS and there's nothing in WP:CYR to help either. Please propose solutions. Thank you. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Some specific problematic examples from Men – Tyva Men:

• Мөңге vs. Өткүт хөөмей ырынга - There's no transliteration standard for letters like ң. To follow English practice of writing "ng" for this sound looks ok at first. An English speaker might look at "mönggе" and get it right. In fact, other Tuvan words transliterated in English tend to use this combination (see for example the names of throat singing styles at Tuvan throat singing). Yet in the second phrase, the word ырынга would transliterate to yrynga, where the particular ң sound does not exist.
• Аймак vs. Акы-дуңма найыралдыг - The first word would transliterate to "aymak" when following something like WP:RUS, yet doing that in the combination "айы" in the second phrase could result in "ayy" which would be confusing. Writing "naiyraldyg" might be less confusing.

--Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

After looking through Wikipedia:Romanization and finding the Romanization of Kyrgyz article, I found that guy's personal website with transliteration schemes[1], which seems to indicate that ISO 9 and ALA/LC could be employed for Tuvan. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

One option is to transliterate /ң/ as " ng ", and /нг/ as " n'g ". An apostrophe is how Japanese romaji usually distinguishes な and んあ, but it may cause problems with ъ/ь. A hyphen/dash may be a good alternative. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 05:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)h

That's not a bad idea, since in lots of modern Turkic languages the ng sound is sometimes a corruption of an n and a g (e.g. dative case of a word ended in n). Ñ can be misunderstood as a ny sound in Old Turkic and should not be used. Nevertheless since we do have ŋ, which is a best cojoint of n and g, it's the best choice. --155.246.5.121 (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I may be a little late here, but I have another idea. Another option is to transcribe ң as n͠g so that it is easily distinguishable from ng (for нг) and pronounced as only one syllable. This was used in Tagalog for the same purpose, however, problems aroused when printers had trouble rendering n͠g, and there may be some computer operating systems that do not properly support n͠g. Also, since several Turkic languages still transcribe ң as ñ for /ŋ/ (like Kazakh), it should be retained. Old Turkic is obviously not spoken anymore and we are used to seeing ñ as the Latin equivalent of ң in Turkic languages. ň is another choice (as used in Turkmen) if you do not like ñ being used for /ŋ/. I still like ŋ though, as it is officially the velar nasal symbol in the IPA and many languages with that sound often transcribe it with ŋ. NeuPommern (talk) 06:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)