Talk:Ulaanbaatar/Archive 2

message: no consensus as yet. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I did a rewrite of the history section. Most of it seemed unsourced anyway, and what was sourced did not seem terribly relevant for an article of this size (what impact did the Dalai visit in 1904 have on the town?). It is still far from perfect, though. I also think a section on ger quarters somewhere in the article would be nice. Yaan (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Ulaanbaatar was not established in 1924, it only got a new name. Your argument would imply that Volgograd has no history before the 1960s, St. Petersburg has no history between 1916 and the 1990s, or even that Lenin, Stalin, Trotzky were never born. Yaan (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I think that in the modern orthography, Ulaanbaatar is usually spelt "ulaɣanbaɣatur" instead of "ulaɣan baɣatur". --Nanshu (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. Gantuya eng (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I will change that some of these days. Thanks for pointing it out. Yaan (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mongolian script

message: The American School of Ulaanbaatar, which offers K-12 education in English, knows how to spell the name of the city correctly. Vidor (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, any organization within Mongolia will of course use the Mongolian spelling. That's just common sense, but doesn't define common English use. The proposal has been closed as no consensus once more. Until  more compelling evidence turns up, it's probably better to give it a rest for another while. --Latebird (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As do many, many organizations outside Mongolia, as shown above.  And I don't feel like giving it a a rest. Vidor (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The convention appears to favor Ulaanbaatar now. Mongolia is so rarely mentioned that the convention can take less time to change. Not many people have even heard of the place or anything beyond Genghis Khan. Also, shouldn't we be telling people the correct name and not reinforcing an incorrect usage? Giving it a rest makes no sense. That's like saying "The economy is in a recession but we can't agree on what to so let's give it a rest.--Metallurgist (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet another piece of evidence for spelling "Ulaanbaatar"

message: IMO the history section now puts too much weigth on the events in 1989/1990. While it is true that these events were very significant for Mongolia, and by extension, for Ulaanbaatar, I think it is wrong to devote 30% of the history section to them. Every visitor to UB can immediatly spot the direct traces of socialism, as well as the signs of a market economy. He can not spot direct traces of hunger strike x, demonstration y or constituency win z. we might as well write how Baron Ungern's first attack on Khuree was repealed on day a, how he freed the Bogd Khan on day b, how he succeeded in taking the city on day c (although outnumbered!), etc. I think no-one is served by this kind of inclusionism. If we look at articles like Paris, Prague Gdansk, Beijing, or Berlin, we see that even events of global (historically or at least symbolically) importance, like the Storming of the Bastille and Parisian Commune, the Prague Spring, the Gdansk shipyard strikes, the communist takeover of Beijing, or the Nazi takeover and Berlin Wall are all just mentioned in one or two sentences (the Tiananmen Square protests are not mentioned at all on the Beijing page), and everybody who wants to know details is directed to more specific articles. Yaan (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By that reasoning, we should really remove all that pre-1992 history from the page of the country named Mongol Uls. Since it only received that name in 1992. Yaan (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  history 

message: Removed dead links.  Bummer. Vidor (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead links

message: Hello all... 
An image used in the article, specifically :Image:IMGP0117.JPG, has a little bit of a licensing issue.  The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive.  It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard.  As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article.  If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.
*Also :Image:IMGP0119.JPG
You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image needs replacement