Dinamik (2018-08-21 14:40:50+00:00): Артём Крюковский (if it is better to use your another name, please, tell me), you showed, that note was added 6 years ago in reference to forum message due to hidrography tradition. Why do you insist on deletion information, if discussions about these deletions ended with nothing? "Your" pages about names don't contradict with "my" pages: imagine 2 people, who look at some waterbody. One of them asks: "How is this waterbody called?". Second gives an answer: "This is Судаковское озеро". Answer "This is Судаковское" will be not full, because it leads to further question "Судаковское озеро? Судаковское море? Судаковское водохранилище?". Other opinions about "Вуокса" can exist, because it has noun-form, but word "Судаковское", evidently, has adjective-form and claimes using with main word. Please, explain your phrase about misleading about how the water object is actually called when using generic word. Are you sure, that Судаковское озеро can't have name Судаковское озеро?). I said "stable version" in context of rules of community editing: if new edit leads to opposition, it is recommended to return data to version, which have existed for some time (this version is called stable version), and data changing person should institute a discussion. Names are often divided in databases for sorting purposes - I can suppose, that you met such "old-type" databases. I think, tag sorting_name can help you: we can put "main part" of name to this tag. I understand your idea about construction names from parts, but such actions shouldn't go to ridiculous lengths: there is no unified algorithm of creation "full" names from "main" parts and "status" parts in Russian language because of its irregularity. We can add additional information about structure of name by tags sorting_name and some another (which are the best?), but the only method to write name correctly, oddly to say, is to write name to name tag). You recommended me to go to Wikimapia, but this is not the solution: tomorrow you can go to Wikimapia and say, that I have to go to some another project, because I don't like some my actions. Do not chase me all over the internet - let's better create discussion substiantially. The solution in projects with joint editing is normal discussion. The problem is not in different opinions, the problem is in persevering edits with algorithm "I will change half of an thousand objects during a few days, immediately write an abuse, when someone will try to cancel my edits, claim such reverts as wrecking behaviour, say, that no-consensus-status automatically means my righteousness". I think, we should expect, that world is not only black or white, the consensus decision may be more complicated (for example, with different rules for noun-form names and adjective-form names). But discussion is possible only when other people expect, that world can be black and white.

A questions about local and alternative names can be solved individually, I even don't remember recent cases, when I put local or alternative name to name tag. Perhaps, I though, that it was name and you though, that it is only loc_name - I repeate, that such cases should be solved individually. It is another local question from global question about naming recommendations.