Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine/Subdivisions

Welcome

I just set up this WikiProject to consolidate some of the discussion that has been going on in several articles and user talk pages, and hopefully to find some new recruits who will pitch in.

Everything I've done is wrong! Please change anything on the project and discussion pages. Add tasks to the to-do list. Complete tasks on the to-do list! Дякую, і добраніч.

—Michael Z. 04:57, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

Hi Michael. Great job! Í'm definitely in this new shape of our work.

BTW, what do you mean "Everything I've done is wrong"? Is that a kind of Wiki motto? Привіт, AlexPU 10:44, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've set up all these pages, but I don't want anyone to think I'm a big authority on the subject. In other words, feel welcome to change anything or disagree. Of course, on WP that should go without saying. —Michael Z. 21:17, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

List of cities in Ukraine

Have a look at List of cities in Ukraine. Someone has done a good job updating all the Ukrainian names (thanks!). I've found a couple of mistakes, and checked all of the English names, and put the results on that article's talk page. Please have a look, and correct/add/delete as necessary. When we're done, I'll merge the results into that page.

—Michael Z. 17:40, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)

Downloaded all pages you mentioned for further analysis. Thanks for Kyiv history. Pryvit. AlexPU 20:43, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I changed the outfit of the german list into a sheet with the ukrainin colours. May be you like that. --Steschke 05:35, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

That looks great to me. Looks like a big job to update the English list to match the German one—can we break it up into steps? Do you have the latest statistics?

Infoboxes

We'll have to compile vital statistics on each oblast' for entry into the infoboxes. One source is Державний комітет статистики України. They have some basic vital statistics listed in .doc files in Ukrainian and English, but unfortunately the more detailed reports are only available at a cost.

We'll compile this info and finalize the format for infoboxes at /Infobox.

—Michael Z. 05:06, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

I'll figure something out from my own database (since I'm a migration researcher too). AlexPU 10:48, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I found some pamphlets published at [2], and cleaned up some data from their .doc files. I'll link to the results from the /Infobox page. If I have an hour or two free on the weekend, I'll throw this info into the infobox collection. —Michael Z. 23:44, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)

update: there doesn't seem to be a simple reliable way to paste UTF-8 text with tabulation into the English Wikipedia. I'll just extract the data and get it into the infobox listing tonight, if it doesn't take too long. —M

I've built the code for all of the infoboxes. Of course, they look terrible without the images—have a look at finished examples in L'vivs'ka oblast' and Cherkas'ka oblast'. Please let me know what you think; suggestions for improvements are welcome.

Does anyone know what exactly is an "urban-type locality"? It would be nice to put "town" in the infobox, but I have a suspicion that that wouldn't be correct. —Michael Z. 06:49, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)

Elya took this definition from an russian encyclopedia. You can ask her to give you the english or russian translation I'm sure. --Steschke 19:37, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

Do you know the english article Townlet (p.g.t.)? I like the word "townlet" :-) and can try to improve the text in the next days... --elya 21:11, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks—I'd better get used to checking the interwiki links. That sure will look better in the infobox than "urban-type localities." Is "townlet" widely used? Have you seen official Soviet or Ukrainian definitions of city, city district, village?

For reference: Google English translation of Siedlung städtischen Typs.

—Michael Z. 22:22, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

I have no Idea if it is used, and my article is just a word-by-word translation. However, I found the alternative bold expression "Siedlung mit städtischem Charakter" in the Big Russian-German Dictionary. I could ask my Ukrainian translator-friend in Ushhorod what she thinks and how it's usually translated, but this may take some days. I will check the others in the Encyclopedia. We have "de:Rajon", and de:Oblast, but I didn't re-check oblast yet. By the way, it's an ukrainian soviet encyclopedia ;-) Best wishes --elya 06:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Odessa ports

Michael, please help corect my mistake. I've recently added Yuzhny, Odes'ka oblast', Ukraine page. But soon found out that its info is terribly obsolete: that port&village was subsumed by Odessa years ago. And there's resprective note on Odessa page. So we should somehow delete that duplicate and obsolete page. May be a redirect? Or should we vote together for that? Regards, AlexPU 12:39, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did a little reading and updated the article. I think Yuzhny still deserves an article of its own, at least for historical reasons. Someone who knows more about the city can elaborate.

I also added a shorter-named redirect from Yuzhny, Ukraine, which should serve until another Yuzhny in Ukraine is found. —Michael Z. 21:15, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

Can you people imagine that geo sh*t?! I've conducted a whole freaking investigation to find out whether Yuzhny is an independent city, or a part of Odessa. And no freaking Ukrainian bureaucrat have written that on their public-sponsored websites! They say there's a big nice port, but no proper political maps to find it, no proper subdivision lists for either Odes'ka oblast' or Odesa itself. Judging by the printed maps, there is no independent city of Yuzhny. In the other hand, there are soccer and basketball teams. So folks let's investigate together, such as looking for a special city page (not port company, but a city or community!). Anyway, who has been to Yuzhny? AlexPU

Alex, I don't want you to hurt yourself :-). The list of raions includes the following. —Michael Z. 16:58, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

       name: Iuzhnens'ka
        typ: mis'ka rada
pop. (2001): 24,000
       area: 9 km²
    capital: Iuzhne
       city: city

Thank you and that website guy. Analysing. Regards, AlexPU

A guy linked to Odessa told me that both Yuzhny and Illichivs'k (another important port) are now the parts of Odessa city (not of oblast'). I keep investigating :) AlexPU

Transliteration

I've finally found a (more-or-less) authoritative copy of Ukraine's official transliteration rules: Правила відтворення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови. It's hosted at hostmaster.net.ua, the registry for the .ua TLD.

I'll update Romanization of Ukrainian with any info that I glean from there.

—Michael Z. 23:37, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

Retire Regions of Ukraine

So Michael, what exactly should we do to retire that article? Vote for that, or contact sysops or something? Maybe a redirect? AlexPU 12:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, we could just redirect it and put a del template message on the page. However, there are lots of links to that page, and it would be good to check them all and update them where necessary. Especially when links to Subdivisions of Ukraine appear on the same page as Regions of Ukraine.

Hm. Looking at the list, I think a lot of those links might be fake ones. Template:Administrative divisions of Ukraine used to link there, but now points to Subdivisions of Ukraine instead. Oblast' pages that haven't been edited in a while show up on the list. —Michael Z. 16:48, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

Spelling cities etc.

Michael, need your qualified Webhelp again:

Berdyansk is a page name, Berdyans'k a redirect. I think it should be just opposite, but don't know how to change it;

Weird—I thought it should be possible to make the move, but I get an error message. I've posted a delete notice on the Berdyans'k redirect page; an admin will delete it sooner or later, then you can use the "move" tab to move Berdyansk to the correct name.

There's a typo error at our Subdivsions navbox: Poltavas'ka should be Poltavs'ka.

Fixed.

Best wishes, AlexPU

Cheers, Michael Z.

Opera

Hi Michael, would you please give me a quick advise on using Opera 7 for formatting text in edit page? I get some Java dialogues and "non-Wiki" frames when trying to use format buttons. Where do I look for troubleshooting: my browser settings, or should I study some special Wiki technique for Opera (and look somewhere deep into Wiki help)? In case of the latter, a link to the apropriate help section would be great (didn't find such from the first look). (The reason for changing browser is simply the bug in my IE5.0). Thanks in advance, AlexPU

Hm, good question! I'm not very familiar with Opera; I use Safari/Mac, and the edit buttons show me example code to type, but don't do anything if I click them. I'll have a look around for info or try Opera (there's a Mac version). Have you tried Firefox? I don't know if it works better for Wikipedia, but all the cool kids are using it. —Michael Z.

Thanks anyway, Michael. At least I can learn to enter codes by typing. BTW, now that freaking Opera is preventing me from logging in Wikipedia. Actually, I'm trying to use it at home (my office PC is OK with IExplorer). My bugged (virus infected?) IE is still full-functional with Wikipedia, but important sites with pop-ups (like newslines) are the problem. And I'm not comfortable about all those changes and re-learning :(( Looking forward to use one browser on any PC and for every each task. Дякую, Майкл AlexPU

P.S. Not sure if I'm a cool kid, but you definitely are :)). Nobody's using Mac in Ukraine - it's expensive and rare. And I guess there could be some problems with bying cracked sotware for Mac ;)))AlexPU

I'm trying Opera/Mac right now. The formatting buttons give a dialogue that asks for text, then inserts the formatted version into the little text field at the top. The Special Characters links at the bottom don't do anything exciting either. I guess the Javascript is MSIE-specific. I've just gotten used to typing everything in, anyway. For Ukrainian text, I found a Mac program that will convert text to entities right in the browser's text field, but I still can't wait for the English WP to adopt UTF-8 so we can dispense with entities. —MZ

Reservoirs on the Dnipro

I've renamed the reservoirs listed at Dnipro, but I couldn't find a map reference and have guessed at the proper names, going by the respective city names. Would someone please check my work? I've left the names in neuter form, as in "Kyivs'ke vodoskhovyshche". To me this looks funny when the WP title will be "Kyivs'ke Reservoir", but I think it's correct. Thanks. —Michael Z. 16:16, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Reverse renaming cities to Russian order

Michael, I think we got a problem with other Wikipedian. Some Mikkalai have recently moved Donets'k back to Donetsk, making Ukrainian pronunciation a redirect. No explanations left on the page (other then link to German-language talk page). And more, I suspect this guy is hostile: he once tried to convince me that info on executions and purges do not belong to NKVD page. Judging by his contributions, Mikkalai is fond of Russian imperialism and promoting the cleaned-up image of SOviets. I decided to discuss it with you (as you're cool Wikipedian activist). Do we start anti-vandalism procedure? AlexPU

Hi Alex, I recommend you to make redirect-pages yourself from the russian version to the ukrainian. So nobody can move the article to the wrong name. This way you block such attemps. --Steschke 20:47, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

I'd like to wish all the Wikipedians, but first of all my fellows in Ukrainian projects, a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Веселих Свят! AlexPU

Reverted name change for oblasts

I've reverted the changed articles from the form Kirovohrad Province to Kirovohrads'ka oblast'. What a big waste of time for all of us! Please folks: if you're going to change a body of work that a group of wikipedians has discussed and executed, whether you are right or wrong, talk to them first. —Michael Z. 2005-03-6 01:15 Z

This ethics issue is discussed more deeply and sharply on my talk page I'll keep up my anti-vandal struggle. AlexPU

The content of that pages would rather be discussed in the next section below.

Oblast's/provinces

First of all, oblast' is definitely a kind of province. But such generalization is surely unacceptable for an encyclopedia.

My objections against suggested renaming of oblast's pagenames into provinces are:

Logically, oblast' is not only a synonym for "province", but also a distinctive (distinctive enough for an encyclopedia) type of the regional/urban development policy of the countries. E.g. oblast's have the definite criteria for creation, typical scheme of government etc. Linguistically, oblast' is probably the world's only type of provinces named after its capital city (instead of historical regional name). In other words, oblast' is either an English term or a perfect candidate for it. And we have a full right to make it a conventional Wikiterm. And people, don't you shout "How could I know it?" at this point. If nobody moved his ass to develop the oblast' page properly, it's by no means the reason for purging the term itself.

Oblast' is an official term in given countries, and part of dozens of other local official terms. Don't shout "it's not used in English locally" - this is purely a matter of the translators' qualification. While those translators are dramatically underpaid and unmotivated yet. As I once told Michael, local official English users do their best to confuse the readers :(( And don't forget that Ukraine is the Europe's largest (Russia - world's largest) country. So we surely deserve our local official term to be included in English like we included American State in our languages :). Thus, the suggested renaming (if implemented) would mislead those readers who study the CIS issues using sources in different languages.

We already have oblast' term article, oblast' articles for Ukraine and Russia. Moreover, I believe dozens of other pages contain terms & links to both oblast' and particular oblast's. Naturally, developing the existing articles is the easiest way to address the issue. Thus, the suggested renaming is technically a complicated needless process. I'd like to stress here that we experience a bitter lack of accurate Ukraine-describing contributors. So an objective and committed Wikipedian would rather find important Ukraine-related subject for development than rename existing articles in a highly-doubtful way.

Also, I'd like to suggest the following compromising steps to improve the oblast'-province correlation:

develop the province and oblast term pages , Subdivisions of Ukraine, Oblasts of Russia etc - in order to show the commons and differences between oblasts (and, generally, between provinces) in different countries.
purge the "province" word and link from every oblast page (at least of Ukrainian oblast's) as misleading. Also, "oblast' "s could temporarily link to Subdivisions of Ukraine instead of to oblast.

As my last resort, I would fiercely demand the oblast pages to be renamed into provinces using transliteration: Odes'ka Province" rather than "Odessa province". Please understand that substituting the official name of a geographic entity with the name of another non-matching entity is surely incorrect.

Can't wait to read the other opinions but hope that mine is the most grounded and shared among other Wikifellows. Best wishes, AlexPU

Calcutta → Kolkata: please vote now

Folks may be interested to know that a precedent-setting vote on renaming Calcutta to Kolkata is being held right now. Please go exercise your democratic right to assert a personal agenda at Talk:Calcutta#Straw poll on the move of Calcutta to Kolkata. —Michael Z. 2005-03-6 16:38 Z

There's a similar vote being held at Talk:Battle_of_Spion_Kop. —Michael Z. 2005-03-10 17:42 Z

Dnieper river → Dnieper River: please vote now

Vote in progress at Talk:Dnieper river#upper case. Please discuss (there), because this is not a clear-cut issue, in my mind. —Michael Z. 2005-03-9 17:22 Z

(the discussion below is copied from Днiпропетровськ talk page)

How the city name Днiпропетровськ is spelled in English

I checked LexusNexus database on how the city name is spelled in major English media. The search for the last two years usage in major papers gives the following results:

Dnepropetrovsk - used 66 times.
Dnipropetrovs'k - used only once.
Dnipropetrovsk - used 243 times. Also used by Britannica.

Therefore, I moving the article from Dnipropetrovs'k to Dnipropetrovsk. Irpen 00:14, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that none of the spellings you mention are English names; they are different transliterations of the Russian and Ukrainian names of the city. Dnipropetrovs'k satisfies the suggested convention in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which says If there is no commonly-used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language.

We've been using the full formal National transliteration for geographic names in Ukraine, in article titles, and often in the text of articles (many articles on Russian Empire and Soviet-era topics use Russian names, and a notable exception is Kiev/Kyiv). It makes good sense to use a consistent transliteration scheme, and not the most popular transliteration scheme for each individual name. I think this is also consistent with most current atlases, Mapquest, MSN Maps, and Terraserver, and also with the observation at Wikipedia:Naming#Ukrainian_names.

Lately I've been considering suggesting changing this to use the official simplified National form (see footnotes of the Romanization table), and retaining the formal transliteration next to an article's Cyrillic (Just the way this article looks, at the moment). But this should probably find consensus on Wikipedia:WikiProject Subdivisions of Ukraine, before starting to move individual articles. —Michael Z. 2005-03-29 01:00 Z

Sorry, I did not know about the Subdivision of Ukraine Project. I will post proposed changed there for discussion in the future. As for this article, I appreciate if you don't move it back for now. Lets discuss this of course, but it seems that 246 mentions in major papers shows that there is a "commonly used English name". I specifically checked "major papers only" in my LexusNexus search because, unlike multitude of internet news sites, major papers do have the style policy and are staffed with editors who check for style consistency. Of course, this is a matter of debate whether accepted English usage is the same thing as "English name" and whether 246 mentions in two years in about 50 major papers establishes the English usage.

BTW, if we use similar criteria, the second largest city in UA should be called "Kharkiv" in WP, rather than Khar'kov, Kharkov, Harkov, etc. I just noticed that you did this change and I agree with it. Perhaps, when referred to in connection with many historical events, the WP usage should be "[[Kharkiv|Kharkov]] (currently Kharkiv)". However, the current English usage favors Kharkiv over Kharkov with a similar margin as Dnipropetrovsk over Dnepropetrovsk.

Lets wait until other editors voice their opinions and decide on what this title should be. Of course, if someone feels too strong about this and can't wait, s/he can move the article back anytime. I will not do anything further with the title until we conclude this discussion. In the meantime, I will try to fill the section stubs in the city history with useful information and hope other editors will help. Cheers, Irpen 01:26, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

On WP naming conventions

After reading more carefully Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and it's talk page, I would like to elaborate a little on how I would interpret it as applicable to this discussion. Here is what the policy says (italicization is mine):

"If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article (as you would find it in other encyclopedias). This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. For example, Christopher Columbus, Venice.

If there is no commonly-used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages like Spanish or French should need no transliteration, but Chinese names can use Pinyin, for example."

The question we have is what is meant by "most commonly used English version of the name". Several interpretations are possible and we should simply choose how to interpret these words. Some names entered English through other means than transliteration of what's their today's name. Examples are Moscow, Warsaw, Germany, Finland, etc. Everyone agrees that there is no question what name to use for these places in English WP. Should we interpret the policy as applying only to those names and everything else should be transliterated from native language?

I interpret the words of the policy differently. The words "most commonly used" either apply only to the word "English" in the sentence or to the combination "English version of the name". Now, are Dnipropetrovsk and Dnipropetrovs'k two different English versions of the same name or they should be treated just as two different transliterations of one name? I think that while they certainly are two different transliteration of the same name, they are also two different versions of the name in English. The question is whether we accept that the way the place is most commonly called by the English media and among English speakers is the "most commonly used English version of the name". Or should we call all these versions "not English" because they originate from another language. Basically it comes down to this: "Does Днiпропетровськ, the town in Ukraine, have its own English name (or several English names for that matter)?". Or perhaps it has only a Ukrainian name and, when the journalist writes about it in English, he transliterates Днiпропетровськ each time on the fly. I think the answer is that he uses an accepted English version, which for this city is a transliteration of its Ukrainian name.

Now, what about the "If there is no commonly-used English name..." clause in the policy? I think it applies to places that are so infrequently mentioned that the standard way to call them did not crystallize. I do believe that serious media sources do not transliterate each time they mention the name of the foreign place. They have specific names to use. Those may evolve. Like the name Gypsy evolved into Roma. Like Dnepropetrovsk evolved into Dnipropetrovsk. Like Kiev may evolve into Kyiv. I think that for the very similar reasons what Britannica chooses for the article names matches the results of my LexisNexis search. The policy also says "as you would find it in other encyclopedias". I am not saying that LexisNexis and Britannica are bulletproof authorities to answer questions about English usage. But they are strong indicators. A simple Google search is more prone to errors for the reasons well known and, I think, Google results mean anything only when the difference is overwhelming.

So, I think we should transliterate in WP only for relatively obscure places which are not mentioned much in English texts. I hope this is going to crystallize into a less ambiguous text of the policy. And only for the names that are used in English very infrequently the discussion on the best transliteration rule should come into play. Of course this all is just my opinion. I am not a specialist in the field, not a veteran of WP and not a native speaker of English. But this is how I understand what is meant by the Policy. Luckily, the policy is not as rigid as constitutions, which are so hard to change that high courts spend all their time figuring out the "correct" way to interpret the text. I do not have skills to write a new version of the policy to propose to the community but I think this is going to happen sooner or later. Regards, —Irpen 06:24, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the policy is represented by your first case. Remember that it speaks to all article titles, not just place names. English names are Moscow, hammer, oak, and not Moskva, molot, and Quercus. But Arctotis does not have a common English name, so it is named in Latin. If it hit the news it would still remain a Latin name. And incidentally, the convention only refers specifically to the naming of articles, and not other usage.

The only geographic names in Ukraine which are well-established enough to have their own English names are "Ukraine" (which I'm guessing was once a German transliteration), and "Dnieper" (which looks to me like a less-awkward to pronounce by Anglophones transcription of Russian Dniepr). All others that I can think of are simply transliterations from Ukrainian or Russian. The most well-known one, "Kiev", is hotly defended against "Kyiv" by Wikipedian Anglophones, because they've actually heard of it before, and they're offended by having to change their pronunciation. But even L'viv and Kharkiv seem to be obscure enough to hardly rate comment when used in place of the "traditional English" Lvov and Kharkov (although I wouldn't dare trying to change it to Kharkiv in a WWII history article).

Their obscurity is also the reason that their usage is so elastic in the press. As a national capital, Kiev is in their style manuals. But they just look up other place names in an atlas and drop the apostrophes, and most atlases now use Ukrainian names in place of Russian. I'm curious how highly Dnipropetrovsk/Dnepropetrovsk rated in LexisNexis, if one only consider the period before the Orange Revolution made the news.

Anyways, it's madness to name every place name this way. We have to use consistent standard, or Ukrainian place naming will be a mix of Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Yiddish, and possibly Tatar, Rusyn, German, Romanian, and Hungarian. Everything that shows up in a "major news source" will be transliterated without apostrophes, and every other name will either come from a recent English-language atlas or from an official Ukrainian government list, and so will have apostrophes for the soft sign. As Ukrainian towns hit the news, their apostrophes will fall away, and you'll spend all your time counting hits on LexisNexis. No one wants that, and it would definitely go against the word and the spirit of the Wikipedia naming convention.

We have an agreed standard, so let's stick to it. The Wikiproject is very quiet, and it may be no problem to change it if you propose to. In the mean time, I'm not going to bother moving this article, but it properly belongs at Dnipropetrovs'k —Michael Z. 2005-03-29 08:22 Z

Irpen, on my changes from Kiev to Kyiv (everywhere) and other similar Rus->Ukr chages of titles. Sorry for opening same topic again and again. As somebody here stated, Kiev - is a transliteration from Russian, and same with Dnieper. Agree or not? I do not find it equally embedded into world culture like Moscow, or Warsaw. And proof for this - more and more frequent Kyiv and Dnipro i serious press. Here is the evolution that you were talking about above. And those from abroad who is used to Kiev, or Dnieper will have to evolve too. I am not going to conserve myself for their convenience, sorry. For this I put old names - Kiev and Dnieper in brackets. But Kyiv and Dnipro has to go first, has to be main title of article, etc. Othervise this evolution will stop. Look at Chinese - someday they changed from Pekin to Beijin for whatever reason. Now everybody uses Beijin. Reason to change rom Rus to Uk name is simple. Ukraine fell out of USSR. Now Ukrainian is an official language of Ukraine. And the only one. And it is used to name cities in Ukraine. And the official names are always in Ukrainian - whatever language I speak in my family. All offical document from Ukraine that go abroad use these official names and no others. So for my convenience I can say Kiev, Dnieper, kartoshka, pivo. But I we write an article in encyclopedia - some kind of official document - we have to do it in official way. I repeat, those, who are new to new names have redirects and old names in brackets. Untill they get used to new ones. As to me - this is the siplest way - to use official names for everything what is whithin Ukrainian territory. Everything outside - completely different story. --Bryndza 22:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bryndza, these are almost exactly the same lines of argument I was using all those months ago when I was new to Wikipedia. But the reality is that only a small minority of English-language press uses Kyiv, enough that it can be considered an alternative English name, but still not nearly as well-known as Kiev to the majority of English-speakers who may only have a vague idea of what Ukraine is at all. At this time, if you push for such a change, you'll get more than enough push-back from mainstream (non-Ukrainian, non-Russian, etc) Wikipedia editors.

It's far more useful to put energy into filling out the unfinished articles about Ukrainian history, geography, language etc, and helping to bring them up to "featured article" standards, to give Ukraine and Ukrainian topics more mainstream attention. —Michael Z. 2005-11-24 22:51 Z

Thanks Michael, I need a bit more time to get into the subject. I kind a feel already that Dnipro ahs to stay Dnieper since it is too long to fit only in Ukraine (thanks to Kuban Kazak who is anyway Russian chauvinist in my opinion). Can anybody show me concerns from those "editors"? Also I'm thinking to give up on English WP and get back to my work in Ukrainian one. There is no agressions and no rev wars.--Bryndza 03:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again me. Couple of questions. Why do you leave "oblast", but do not translate it into "province"? Same with "vodoskhovysche" - why not to write "reservoir"? You want to increase lexicon of Anglophones? From the other side you care so much that they may have difficulties to study Kyiv instead of Kiev. Good that apostrophes are taken out from Slavic words. These signs are understandable only for linguists. I'm still wondering why you leave 2 provinces (Kyiv and Odesa) in Russian transliteration and change all others to official one. Did you try to change? Did you get negative feedback from editors? Do you want to change it at all? Michael, yes, Kyiv vs Kiev is tremendously outnumbered in Western press, but as I wrote before - do we have adjust to it, or the slow evolution should take place? Starting from changes in WP. What if you take new (2-3 years old) editions of geographical atlasses and take names from there? I just opened mine (2003. Great World Atlas, FIREFLY, London, UK). Some examples how is written here: Beograd (Belgrad), Athina (Athens), Odesa, Kyyiv (Kiev), Kharkiv, Donets'k, Zaporizhzhya, Dniprodzerzhyns'ke Vodoskhovyshche (hmm...), Chornobyl', Chernihiv, Dnieper (Dnipro), Warszawa (Warsaw), Praha (Prague), Moskva (Moskow) etc. And this atlas is made by those "nasty" Anglophones who suddenly forgot English names and put them in brackets after native names. Why not to use this respectable edition as an argument for editors if they will have concerns about your changes? Don't take it as criticism. I'm asking seriously.--Bryndza 04:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bryndza, please read this page to the end. Most questions you pose are discussed and answered below. If after reading, you still have some, we'll discuss them. Thanks, --Irpen 04:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as everything else in Wikipedia, we start with the conventions, and then it seems that almost every single case requires the editors' judgement anyway. Short version: the article is named Dnipropetrovsk, but the first line also includes "Дніпропетровськ, Dnipropetrovs’k"; in some examples it seems like trivial duplication, in others it's important.

I have been thinking of changing Kyivs'ke Reservoir to Kiev/Kyiv Reservoir (also have to find a list of Dniprivski tributaries somewhere, because the one in the article looks incomplete to me). Ukraine, Dnieper, Odessa, Kiev, Chernobyl, Western Bug (but not Southern Buh) are very well-established in English, and changing them just gets too much flack—don't ask me to relate the exact arguments for each one, because I don't remember. (I was kind of surprised that Lviv and Kharkiv were not a problem, although the latter remains Kharkov in most WWII-related articles)

We used to have Kyivs'ka oblast', etc., but that seemed too far removed from "Kiev"; Kiev Oblast means exactly the same thing to anglophones.

Likewise, for most article titles we use a simple anglicized version of names; for direct transliterations we use the apostrophe for myahkiy znak, and in the few cases it comes up, a double apostrophe for the Ukrainian apostrof.

For most geographic names we use the official simplified version of the Ukrainian National transliteration system (see Romanization of Ukrainian), because it's used by the Ukrainian government, the UN, and is easy to read for anglophones. I did a survey of atlases once; all the Oxford and related atlases use a modified BGN/PCGN transliteration ("Kyyiv"), some use a European system ("Kyjiv, Charkiv"). Atlases are also more likely to use or at least include the Ukrainian version than other types of references ("Kiev (Kyiv)", or "vodoskhovyshche").

We use other transliteration systems too; most personal names use an ad hoc phonetic system; vaguely similar to BGN/PCGN but simplifying -ий endings from -yy to -y. Linguistics articles use the Scientific Transliteration.

I wish we could be still more disciplined about transliterations. Editors of Russian articles have standardized on one "system" for both article titles and transliterations of words (see Transliteration of Russian into English). It tries to duplicate the usual anglicization of Russian names, which is fine for article titles, but it has so many exceptions that wherever there is a transliterated name, the Cyrillic name must be present too, or you can't tell what the original word was. If we could standardize both Russian and Ukrainian (and others) on one good transliteration system, then we could in many cases leave out the Cyrillic (I'm a big believer that brief is better in writing).

Likewise, Ukrainian transliterations are a bit undisciplined, but try to represent the original pronunciation for anglophones. For example, I use ia, ie, iu for non-syllabic iotified vowels, but ya, ye, yu when they form a syllable: sviato, but yahoda and piyak. And I'm still not sure if -ий should be -iy, -yi, or just -y.

Anyway, that's far too long an explanation, and I don't know if it even answers your questions. And I'm out of whisky ("khvyskyi?"), so that's all for now. —Michael Z. 2005-11-25 04:56 Z

Bryndza, to this I would just add, please read this page to the end. You will see that many issues were thoroughly discussed. --Irpen 08:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys, I have read this page three times till the end and understand your phonetic rules and principles. But I'm asking about completely different. Could you shortly answer each of my questions in the previous post? Thank you. --Bryndza 13:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was an effort a while ago to translate all nations' subdivisions to generic English names "province", "district", etc. It was many of our opinion that this would lose something in the translation—a Canadian province has different attributes from a U.S. state and a Ukrainian oblast; these words are not exact synonyms.

Kyivs'ke Vodoskhovyshche, etc, should probably be changed to Kyiv Reservoir, since it's a direct translation.

Regarding Kiev/Kyiv; it's specifically against Wikipedia conventions to set trends or conduct original research. We reflect the pervading usage. For whatever reason, atlases use native transliterations of names more than other sources do; perhaps it's because a map is a practical document which has to stay in synch with local usage. For similar reasons, we offer the Ukrainian and sometimes Russian or Polish names at the beginning of articles.

Have we missed answering any of your questions? —Michael Z. 2005-11-25 17:07 Z

Thank you, Michael. The remaining questions are: Who are editors, Wikipedia convention consists of... whom? How do you know prevaiding opinion of people who contributes to WP, How do you put stress (naholos) on a letter in any word? What is the difference between "Kyiv (Kiev)" and "Kiev (Kyiv)". Thank you.--Bryndza 22:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

I'd just like to add my two cents to the whole naming issue. If you were to walk up to a random person on the street in a certain Western Ukrainian city, and ask them where they are living, they would very likely tell you they are in Lviv [Ukrainian]. If you were to perform the same experiment in a certain Eastern Ukrainian city, they would equally likely tell you they are in Kharkov [Russian].

Historically, the Russian names were officially used, because of the Russian linguistic imperialism of the former Soviet government. Today's Ukrainian names are reflective of the Ukrainian linguistic imperialism of the current Ukrainian government. I believe this is largely a reaction to the former Russian linguistic imperialism.

I would like to advance the notion that Wikipedia should not support either form of linguistic imperialism. Rather, names should be based on the language actually spoken by the majority of the people in the place under discussion. This would give us Lviv and Kharkov. It would still leave a problem with places where the majority language is less clear.

I would add that, Ukraine being a democracy, I believe the government will eventually come to its senses and allow people to name their places in the language they speak. Indeed, some change along these lines is already occurring, as it is now permissible to hold official weddings in Ukraine in the Russian language, for example.

William Jockusch

William, this have been discussed in the past. What determines the titles of articles in English Wikipedia is the prevailing English language usage. That's what our conventions say and that's what we go by rather than by residents' self-appelation or the quickly changing political situation in the countries. --Irpen 01:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on Wikipedia naming conventions as applicable to Ukrainian names. Part 1

I continue this discussion on the project page. I think changing this standard makes sense to better conform the WP policy. I agree that there are two separate issues for the foreign names. The first one is how to name the article and the second one is how to call the place or the person within the article or within other articles (like Харків in the context of the WW2). The second question is easier to settle. Within the article devoted to the city itself it is easy to give other names and other transliterations in the first paragraph. Currently, the article does exactly this:

Dnipropetrovsk (Ukrainian: Дніпропетровськ, Dnipropetrovs'k; Russian: Днепропетро́вск, Dnepropetrovsk, formerly Екатериносла́в, Yekaterinoslav) is ...

Inside other articles, the context would affect how we refer to the place. The article about Stepan Makarov says that he "was born in Nikolaev, now Mykolayiv, Ukraine..." Another article may write about Alexander Suvorov's visit to Yekaterinoslav (currently Dnipropetrovsk). When talking about today's event, like 2004 Ukrainian Presidential election we would just say Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk. However, for the name of the article, we can only pick one variant like "Dnipropetrovsk" or "Dnipropetrovs'k"

The issue at hand is how to interpret the WP policy and we have to decide what names conform the current policy in this and similar situations. Whether or not the names that conform the policy are madness is more or less an matter of opinion. The policy interpretation is what has to be decided, and, preferably, the interpretation should be as universally applicable as possible. Alternatively, we can offer to change the policy or change the wording of the policy to make it less ambiguous. This debate will generate much more heat from dozens or hundreds of editors and I don't want to go through this.

We both agree that according to the policy, the places that are virtually unheard of in English media should be named by transliterating the national name (the rules of transliteration is a separate issue).

The question of our disagreement is what to do if the name of the place is mentioned in the media and among the names used by major media one clearly prevails the other or the others. Does this make this name the "most commonly used English version of the name"? It certainly is most commonly used. Is it an English version of the name? I believe it is. Even though the origin of this name is transliteration rather than a centuries old tradition (like Moscow and Warsaw), this is a most commonly used variant of transliteration of the name making it the most common name used in English. The policy further mentions "as you would find it in other encyclopedias". Not coincidently the names of the articles in Britannica correspond to the accepted use in English media. I don't know whether Britannica and the media just so happen to use identical transliteration schemes or Britannica actually checks the current usage when deciding how to name the article. But the results are the same anyway. Finally, we can look how the WP articles devoted to Russian cities are named. In those cases there are no disputes of which language name (Russian or Ukrainian) to use for transliteration and we can safely assume that this decision is devoid of politics. The articles are called Suzdal, Tver and there is no apostrophe. Britannica calls them exactly the same way as well as the media, although infrequently because these places rarely make it into the world news.

There are not many WP editors currently concerned about this. So, we can all agree on the rules to use. It seems to me that following the trends that go in English language media is what's meant by the word and the spirit of the policy and that's what being done in Britannica. Many names of Ukrainian cities right now appear to be in accordance with this rule. In addition to contentious Kiev/Kyiv current article names are Odessa, Lviv, Donetsk. Why not follow one standard and use Dnipropetrovsk and Ivano-Frankivsk for the names? Regards, —Irpen 20:01, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding historic naming, I agree that that should usually be at the discretion of editors of particular articles. But keep in mind the difference between Yekaterinoslav whose name was changed, and Kharkov which hasn't changed, and the Russian name is usually used in WWII history articles without any explanation or caveat.

I agree with you on this. While the use of KharkOv in WWII context is understandable because that's how it was used in most war-history literature (reasons aside), at least the first mention of the city should be followed by a note. For example in the article Second Battle of Kharkov, it would be appropriate to amend the first sentence to: "On the Eastern Front of World War II, the Second Battle of Kharkov was a May 1942 attempt by the Soviet Union to recapture the Ukrainian city of [[Kharkiv|Kharkov]] (Kharkiv) from the Germans." Irpen

Some articles that retain Russian transliteration in their title are Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Odesa, as well as Symferopol (at Simferopol, probably merely due to relative obscurity).

I think the title of the Kharkov article should be changed and the article should be moved to the name "Kharkiv". And it is called Kharkiv both in the news and in Britannica. Other cities you mentioned are also important enough to be sometimes in the news. Media call them Kiev, Odessa and Simferopol and that's why the articles are called that way. Britannica articles are called this way too. Irpen

Britannica, and a few atlases (can't remember which), use a modified BGN/PCGN transliteration, dropping the soft sign but retaining an apostrophe for the apostrof, as you can see by the names Pereyaslav-Khmelnytskyy, Volodymyr-Volynskyy, and Kam'yanets-Podilskyy. They also provide two or three transliterations of the names in Russian, some of which do include transcribed soft signs.

Well, the Britannica has to call Pereyaslav-Khmelnytskyy and Volodymyr-Volynskyy somehow. Due to their relatively small size they are perhaps mentioned in the news so infrequently, that there is simply no trend to establish. I agree that for such places we need to transliterate. Irpen

I suspect that most news sources will use the National transliteration, which they would find in most atlases, and drop the transcribed soft signs. Since every single town in Ukraine is going to have its official name transcribed with the National system, and the UN and most atlases have followed suit, it's clearly the one to use.

When the news sources start to call places differently, the encyclopedias will follow suite, I am sure. The point I am trying to make is that for the cases when one version of the name is clearly preferred in English language media (be it because a particular transliteration scheme was chosen, like Lviv, or because media are simply used to a certain name, like Kiev or Odessa) the encyclopedias should reflect the most common usage in the article names. Encyclopedia should not try to establish what name to use by choosing among transliterations. Encyclopedias should reflect the currently prevailing usage. And this, I believe, is meant by the policy instruction: "use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article (as you would find it in other encyclopedias)." Irpen

But I'm opposed to ad-hoc exceptions like dropping the soft signs willy-nilly. Fortunately, a better alternative exists: the abbreviated version of the National system, which is has a couple of special rules (see Romanization of Ukrainian). I would still like to see each article have a formal transliteration with apostrophes appear once, next to the name in Cyrillic. —Michael Z. 2005-03-30 22:05 Z

I think the issue is more broad than whether to drop a soft sign or not for a particular name. The issue is whether the names in the encyclopedias should reflect the contemporary usage and I think they should. When choosing the name for encyclopedia article, the editor has to choose the name that is being used most commonly. It is not the job of the encyclopedia to enter into the argument of what name is "correct". And I suggest to use this rule for the titles of articles devoted to Ukrainian locations.

I don't think we should rely completely on the news media as the primary indicator of the most common English usage. It is the most likely to change, and the least disciplined. Modern dictionaries like the Oxford are compiled very carefully, with a documentary intent, not prescriptive. They are a very strong indicator of what is currently being used (not necessarily this week, of course, but in the last year or two). Atlases and encyclopedias are respected authorities on geographic names, so we know that current usage will always be influenced by them (i.e., that's where the press will get the names from). —Michael Z. 2005-03-31 04:37 Z

More on Wikipedia naming conventions as applicable to Ukrainian names. Part 2

I am not suggesting to rely on the news media completely. Although it is less prone to errors than google test, both of them mean anything only when the difference is very clear and sampling is statistically significant. And I completely agree that dictionaries, because they are made to serve as a reference the same way as respectable encyclopedias, are compiled with documentary intent, i.e. they document the current situation. I just checked what Oxford uses for article titles. Here is how articles are called in online Oxford Dictionary: Kiev, Lviv, OdeSSa, but CherkaSy, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Luhansk (interestingly, if you check out Lugansk in Oxford it gives "Russian name for Luhansk and a redirect), Simferopol, Sebastopol (Sevastopol shows up simply as a "Russian and Ukrainian name for Sebastpol" and redirect), Chernihiv. Britannica calls articles in exactly the same way as oxford except for SeVastopol, to which Sebastopol redirects. Additionally, Britannica has an article for Ivano-Frankivsk which is missing in the Oxford Dictionary. I note that for those in the list that I checked in LexisNexis for the media usage, the names matched.

It seems to me in view of that, that reference sources do reflect the current usage, when the usage is significant, and transliterate when the usage is small or non-existent. However, whether my conclusion on how they do it (watch first and transliterate only when they have to) is correct or not, if we accept the combined authority of Britannica, Oxford and a list of what LexisNexis calls major papers [3], we should move the articles according to these names. I am not saying we should do it right away. What I would do is to move two or three and see the reaction from other editors. For example Dnipropetrovsk (already moved), Kharkov to Kharkiv and, say, Luhans'k to Luhansk. But if you object, I would be happy to wait and give time for others to voice their opinions. What do you think? Irpen 05:41, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather wait a day or two, and solicit opinions a bit more widely, rather than risk a backlash. Too sleepy right now, but tomorrow night I'll post a brief note at naming conventions, the subdivisions project, and anywhere else that makes sense. We'll have to go through the move request process for Kharkiv, which is also a good way to get more opinions. This will also affect oblasts, rivers, etc., which I haven't given any thought to. —Michael Z. 2005-03-31 07:20 Z

I agree with you. Let's wait and let others voice their opinions. It is important to emphasize to other editors that what's being proposed is not to rename 2 or 3 articles but the general rule how to to name the articles devoted to Ukrainian cities. For the article name, the name of the city that is most widely accepted in English language is to be used, at least in the cases when one version seems to be preferred in English by the wide margin. Establishing the preferred version includes checking what's being used in major media and respectable reference books, such as Britannica, Oxford Dictionary, Webster Dictionary. Google search results may also be taken into account but only if the winner of the Google test has a clear advantage (at least a factor of 2 or 3). In case the most widely used name is established, it is to be used for an article name irrespective of the origin of this version, be it a "correct" transliteration, "incorrect" transliteration, transliteration from the "right" or the "wrong" language, transliteration via correct or incorrect transliteration rule, or not a transliteration at all but the version used in English for other reasons. For the locations mentioned in English media too infrequently to establish the prevailing usage, especially those missing from the English reference sources, the transliteration from Ukrainian is to be used. Should it be the BGN/PCGN or other conversion table can be decided separately.

As for oblasts, rivers, etc., lets deal with one issue at a time. If the proposed rule of the names of towns and cities is accepted, it would set a good precedent on dealing with similar issues. In my opinion, the proposed rule conforms best both the Wikipedia Policy and the common sense. The issue of what names to use in the texts of the articles is much more narrow, context specific and easier to solve because the name inside the article can be followed by an explanatory note. Irpen 21:44, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Keep in mind that in case of a dispute, your thoughts about how to determine the most useful name would make convincing suggestions, but it may end up coming down to a vote. I'm still of a mind that we should start with the National transliteration as a default, and use a different name if it's overwhelmingly popular; different approach but probably same results.

The one possibility that bothers me is that (e.g.) some Ukrainian village appears in a hundred WWII history books by its Russian name, and has been completely unremarkable ever since. Do you think that this would warrant its article title to be the historic Russian, or the modern official Ukrainian? —Michael Z. 2005-04-6 18:46 Z

I think that all the talk above about how the English usage matters in Wikipedia applies only to the names where there is a current English usage at some significant level. I agree with you that national transliteration should be a default name for an article if the English usage is non-existent or dismal. So, if there is a village like you suggested, and it was not being mentioned at all in major English language media in a recent time, it would mean that there is no established English name and we should use a transliteration. This would not prevent editors of the WW2 articles to use a historic Russian name in those articles.

I guess, any oblast center would get dozens of hits in, say, a 24-months major media search. Most of them would be called by Ukrainian names through a simplified transliteration. The only exceptions I can think of right now are Kiev, Odessa, cities in Crimean peninsula. Maybe there are a couple of others but that would be it. Irpen 20:10, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

On the example of Dnipropetrovs'k versus Dnipropetrovsk, I want to say that the "vs'k" form seems quite inappropriate to me. As a transliteration it may be more accurate, but as a word to an English reader it is bizarre. The apostrophe presumably signifies something omitted, but that is not useful to an English speaker, and its presence is disruptive. I'd go with the Dnipropetrovsk form, and generally avoid the "vs'k" and similar constructions elsewhere. (I know nothing of Slavic languages.) -R. S. Shaw 03:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Simplification of oblast names?

Having just expanded the article on Kharkivs'ka oblast', I think it would be worth trying to simplify and standardise the oblast names. While I agree with the comments above about transliteration and what to call the regions (oblasts vs provinces), I think it would be better to drop the soft signs and render the oblast names in the English style - hence Kharkiv oblast rather than Kharkivs'ka oblast'. Apart from being more comprehensible to non-Ukrainian-speakers, it would also produce less problematic URLs (Kharkivs'ka oblast' corresponds to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkivs%27ka_oblast%27 ) and would be consistent with the usage in other Wikipedias (e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblast_Charkiw ). What do people think? -- ChrisO 13:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would be okay with that. We'd have to update Subdivisions of Ukraine, too. Please give it a few days, to give everyone who was involved with this project a chance to see this discussion. —Michael Z. 2005-04-13 13:50 Z.

Actually, I was about to make an identical suggestion. What seems best to me is to have the article names as: Kharkiv Oblast, Cherkasy oblast, Kiev oblast for the oblasts named by the name of the cities. Then the first paragraph of the article would say something like:

Kharkiv Oblast (Харківська область, Kharkivs’ka oblast’ in Ukrainian, Харьковская область, Khar'kovskaya oblast’ in Russian) is...

As for the oblasts named by the historical names of the areas, I would move Zakarpats'ka Oblast to Transcarpathian oblast and Volyns'ka oblast to Volhynian oblast.

Personally, I would go even further and call oblasts as regions in the article titles like: Transcarpathian Region or Odessa Region, etc. Replacing "oblast" by some commonly used English term of the similar meaning in the name of the article seems appealing to me. A term "region" seems more appropriate to me than "province", because a "province" usually implies a significant degree of self-governing and Ukraine is a unitarian state. So, I would use "region" in the article name preserving the term oblast for the use inside the articles itself.

But this may seem like going too far to other editors, so I will not insist on that. Lets keep moving in small steps. So, if everyone agrees on dropping the "-s'ka" endings, lets just do that first. Irpen 03:38, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with "oblast" which has a decent article and is found in the Oxford English Dictionary, instead of region, which is an ambiguous, questionable translation (province might be closer, but still not quite the same). This would be consistent with other countries' usage in Wikipedia (Cantons, Russian oblasts, etc.). I'd also like to follow the English-language convention of capitalizing all the words of proper names (e.g., "Kharkiv Oblast", not "Kharkiv oblast").

All right, let's keep it as Oblasts then in the names of the article. Irpen

Regarding Zakarpats'ka, how do Zakarpattia Oblast or Zakarpattia sound? On the other hand, Zakarpatia Oblast and Zakarpatia are consistent with the simplified National transliteration. I'm not sure; Transcarpathia is about as recognizable. ... For consistency it should include "Oblast".

Regarding Zakarpattia, both Transcarpathia and Zakarpattia are not very recognizable, because of the area relative obscurity. However, Transcarpathia is an English name, so I would use it in the article name as Transcarpathian Oblast. Until someone writes a separate article about a historical area of Transcarpathia, we could keep a redirect both from Zakarpattia and Transcarpathia to Transcarpathian Oblast. Irpen

I think Carpathian Ruthenia might already qualify as an article the geographic/historic region. Maybe some redirects should be changed?

I'm leaning towards consistently basing the translation on the transliteration of all the names. Some others could also be translated a few ways (although more awkwardly: Nicholas Oblast) but modern references such as atlases will have transliterated names. Maybe we should stick close to that unless the media picks up a different usage.

The other anomaly is Volyns'ka oblast', whose capital is Lutsk. What do you think of Volyn Oblast, or the (Latinized?) Volynhia Oblast?

Actually, the oblast owes its name to the historical area, known in English as Volhynia and in Ukrainian as Волинь. So, it seems to me that the best name for the article in English Wikipedia is Volhynian Oblast. Irpen

Again, for consistency starting to think we should use the noun form of the name (Volyn Oblast).

Revised oblast summary table design

I've experimentally revised the design of the summary table at Kharkivs'ka oblast' along the lines of the one used for French départments. I've placed the old and new versions side by side below for an easier comparison. What do you all think? - is this an improvement? -- ChrisO 23:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kharkivs'ka oblast' Харківська область
Location


Summary Information
Population - Total (2004) - Density	2,857,751 91/km²
Area	31,400 km²
Raions	27
Cities	17
City districts	9
Urban localities	61
Villages	1,683

Kharkivs’ka oblast’ Харківська область
capital	Kharkiv
population total density urban	2,857,751 91/km² 78.8%
area	31,400 km²
raions cities city districts urban-type localities villages	27 17 9 61 1,683

Wow! Have all the oblast maps have been made? Looks very professional and makes a good impact.

I still prefer a more subdued look for the table, integrated into Wikipedia's monobook.css skin, focussing on the content and minimizing the table framework. I'd also leave out the labels location and summary information. —Michael Z. 2005-04-14 05:50 Z

How about this version. Darnit, I can't get MSIE/Windows to draw the cell boundaries.

That looks pretty good. Let's not change the font size, though - I don't think it's a good idea to override the default font size. -- ChrisO 22:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kharkiv Oblast Харківська область


Population Total (2004) Density	2,857,751 91/km²
Area	31,400 km²
Raions	27
Cities	17
City districts	9
Urban localities	61
Villages	1,683

Proposed renaming

Based on the table at Subdivisions of Ukraine.

The "simplified" transliteration is an official variation of the National System (see Romanization of Ukrainian), with these differences:

Doubled consonants ж, х, ц, ч, ш are simplified (e.g. Запоріжжя—Zaporizhia).
Apostrophe and soft sign are omitted, except for ьо and ьї which are always rendered as ’o and ’i.

List of Ukraine's oblasts
Transliterated (National)	Transliterated (simplified)	Centre city (capital) (see note)	Noun-based name	Other names	Proposed renaming
Cherkas'ka oblast'	Cherkaska oblast	Cherkasy	Cherkasy Oblast		Cherkasy Oblast
Chernihivs'ka oblast'	Chernihivska oblast	Chernihiv	Chernihiv Oblast		Chernihiv Oblast
Chernivets'ka oblast'	Chernivetska oblast	Chernivtsi	Chernivtsi Oblast		Chernivtsi Oblast
Dnipropetrovs'ka oblast'	Dnipropetrovska oblast	Dnipropetrovs'k	Dnipropetrovsk Oblast		Dnipropetrovsk Oblast
Donets'ka oblast'	Donetska oblast	Donets'k	Donetsk Oblast		Donetsk Oblast
Ivano-Frankivs'ka oblast'	Ivano-Frankivska oblast	Ivano-Frankivs'k	Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast		Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast
Kharkivs'ka oblast'	Kharkivska oblast	Kharkiv	Kharkiv Oblast		Kharkiv Oblast
Khersons'ka oblast'	Khersonska oblast	Kherson	Kherson Oblast		Kherson Oblast
Khmel'nyts'ka oblast'	Khmelnytska oblast	Khmel'nyts'kyi	Khmelnytskyi Oblast		Khmelnytskyi Oblast
Kyivs'ka oblast'	Kyivska oblast	Kyiv/Kiev	Kyiv Oblast	Kiev Oblast	Kiev Oblast
Kirovohrads'ka oblast'	Kirovohradska oblast	Kirovohrad	Kirovohrad Oblast		Kirovohrad Oblast
Luhans'ka oblast'	Luhanska oblast	Luhans'k	Luhansk Oblast		Luhansk Oblast
L'vivs'ka oblast'	Lvivska oblast	L'viv	Lviv Oblast		Lviv Oblast
Mykolaivs'ka oblast'	Mykolaivska oblast	Mykolaiv	Mykolaiv Oblast		Mykolaiv Oblast
Odes'ka oblast'	Odeska oblast	Odesa/Odessa	Odesa Oblast	Odessa Oblast	Odessa Oblast
Poltavs'ka oblast'	Poltavska oblast	Poltava	Poltava Oblast		Poltava Oblast
Rivnens'ka oblast'	Rivnenska oblast	Rivne	Rivne Oblast		Rivne Oblast
Sums'ka oblast'	Sumska oblast	Sumy	Sumy Oblast		Sumy Oblast
Ternopil's'ka oblast'	Ternopilska oblast	Ternopil'	Ternopil Oblast		Ternopil Oblast
Vinnyts'ka oblast'	Vinnytska oblast	Vinnytsia	Vinnytsia Oblast		Vinnytsia Oblast
Volyns'ka oblast'	Volynska oblast	Luts'k	Volyn Oblast	Volhynia Oblast, Volhynian Oblast, Volynska Oblast	Volyn Oblast
Zakarpats'ka oblast'	Zakarpatska oblast	Uzhhorod	Zakarpattia Oblast	Transcarpathian Oblast, Zakarpatska Oblast	Zakarpattia Oblast
Zaporiz'ka oblast'	Zaporizka oblast	Zaporizhzhia	Zaporizhia Oblast		Zaporizhia Oblast
Zhytomyrs'ka oblast'	Zhytomyrska oblast	Zhytomyr	Zhytomyr Oblast		Zhytomyr Oblast

Note: The name in the Centre city (capital) column is sometimes given in Xxx/Yyy format where Xxx is a direct transliteration from Ukrainian and Yyy is how the city article is currently called in Wikipedia, based on the prevailing English usage, if different from the national transliteration: Kyiv/Kiev and Odesa/Odessa

On the names denoted by question marks in the table. As for the first two, I have a very strong preference for Odessa Oblast and Kiev Oblast. If the English usage evolves and the respective city articles get renamed, the oblast article should be renamed too. But this hasn't happend and who knows whether this is going to happen.

As for the latter two names, I would weakly vote against Volyn. It is not derived from any nown or a city name. So, I would use Volhynian Oblast for the reasons given earlier. Betweem Zakarpattia Oblast and Transcarpathian Oblast, I would weakly prefer the latter. But again, the choice seems less clear to me for these. Irpen 20:11, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm okay with Kiev Oblast and Odessa Oblast.

I've always found the spelling "Volhynia" odd-looking. Does anyone know if that is an old Latin usage, or transcribed into Romanian, Hungarian or German, or coming from Lithuanian, or something else? I prefer Volyn Oblast, an adjectival noun transcribed from the Ukrainian word for the historic region Volyn’, but only because I'm puzzled by the spelling with the "h" in it.

I prefer Zakarpatia Oblast (simplifying the double T) which goes nicely with all of the other transcribed names, over the translated Latin/English Transcarpathian Oblast, but I don't feel strongly about it either. Transcarpathian Oblast has the advantage of conveying the original meaning. —Michael Z. 2005-05-11 22:58 Z

Action taken

Let's then move everything but Volyn/Volhynia and Zakarpatia/Transcarpathia and hope that the move will generate enough interest to the topic so that other editors would say something about the two remaining names. It seems to me, that only Kyiv Oblast -> Kiev Oblast can be easily moved. As for the rest, we'll have to go through Wikipedia:Requested moves because articles with redirects already exist. Maybe for those oblast articles that are short as of now with little or no history and little or no text on the talk pages (this applies to the majority of the articles), we don't have to be so formal and we can just move by cut and paste. That would save the "requested moves" page from getting loaded with over 20 requests on the same topic all at once. If there are editors who care much and disapprove such shortcut, they would just revert and then we could list them too at "requested moves" for a vote Irpen 23:47, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'll just see which ones I can move right now. The rest will go to requested moves (I think a bulk request would be okay). Let's see what kind of interest we generate. —Michael Z. 2005-05-12 21:37 Z

Done—whew! They all worked. I've fixed all of the double redirects. I've fixed all the introductions so the names are consistent and transliterated, but there are many inconsistencies in the bodies of the oblast articles, and in Subdivisions of Ukraine—something to keep us busy for a little while. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2005-05-12 21:46 Z

Great! Thanks for taking up on that! I just gave another thought to two oblasts still under question. Also checked the Britannica. It has an article called "Volhynia". It doesn't have an article for this oblast but the article about Lutsk calls the city a "centre of Volyn oblast (province)". Similarly, in EB's article "Ukraine" Transcarpathia is mentioned as an area but Uzhgorod article is called a "centre of Zakarpattya oblast (province)". So, I would say let's go with Volyn Oblast and Zakarpattya Oblast and have Volhynia and Transcarpathia mentioned in the very first lines of oblast articles. Irpen 00:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. How do you feel about the spelling Zakarpatia Oblast, which conforms with the simplified National System for geographic names?

(Looking at the table above, I'm now thinking that I messed up the transliteration of a couple of the names we just moved. I'll sort it out and report back later.) —Michael Z. 2005-05-13 02:21 Z

Yup. I had checked the transliteration of all the Ukrainian oblast names, but not of the cities. Mykolayiv is properly transliterated Mykolaiv according to the National system, and Vinnytsya is Vinnytsia, or simplified Vinytsia (I've updated the table above). Google search result counts show Mykolayiv to have a 50% lead on English-language pages, and the two Vinnyts(y/i)as to be about even. What do you think? —Michael Z. 2005-05-13 02:41 Z

Re Vinnyts?a and Mykola(?)iv, below are the LexysNexys major paper search results for the last two years for strings Town+Ukraine: ViNNytsIa vs ViNNytsYa - 4:2, both ViNytsia and ViNytsya have zero hits. Mykolayiv vs Mykolaiv 3:1. So, it seems better to go with double N with Vinnyts?a. Both 4:2 and 3:1 seems indecisive, so for consistency, I would go with Vinnytsia and Mykolaiv as you suggest. Of all variants of Zakarp..a, there is only one Lexis Nexis results and it is "Zakarpattia" (article: "Shells, mortars found near pipe line", The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec), April 18, 2004). So, I would keep double T and have no preference between Zakarpattia and Zakarpattya. If you think that "I" would be better for consistency, let's go with it. Irpen 04:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

In the mean time, I've had a closer look at the guideline. In simplified National transliteration, only doubled ж, х, ц, ч, and ш are simplified. So the correct names by that system are Mykolaiv, Vinnytsia, and Zakarpattia. Only Zaporizhia should have it's double-ж simplified. Looks like you've anticipated the recommendation. I'll change these shortly—if you see anything that doesn't look right, let me know. —Michael Z. 2005-05-13 04:14 Z

Okay, that's all cleaned up, except for Vinnytsya → Vinnytsia, which I couldn't move. I'll post a notice on requested moves. —Michael Z. 2005-05-13 04:53 Z

Move request posted; vote at Talk:Vinnytsya Oblast. —Michael Z. 2005-05-13 05:11 Z

By the way, is the village linked from Zakarpattia Oblast as Chop, Ukraine called Хоп, or Чоп? Just want to make sure the transliteration is correct, and I've never heard of it. —Michael Z. 2005-05-13 04:45 Z

The place in Zakarpattia is spelled and pronounced Чоп (Tchop) in Ukrainian and Tsap in Hungarian. It is a relatively non-obscure place (not sure whether town or village) because it is a railroad junction and border town. Three borders merge at that location: Ukraine, Hungary and Slovakia. Maybe it is commonly called Tchop in English. I will check later. Irpen 15:40, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not Tchop. Major papers call it Chop. These are the references.

New borders create pain and envy for some, Financial Times (London, England), May 1, 2004 Saturday, London Edition 1, EU ENLARGEMENT; Pg. 7, 384 words, By TOM WARNER, CHOP.
Reporters on the Job, Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), March 29, 2002, Friday, WORLD; Pg. 06, 377 words.
On New Europe's Rim, Families Fear Ramparts , The New York Times, March 7, 2001 Wednesday, Late Edition - Final , Section A; Column 1; Foreign Desk; Pg. 3, 1404 words, By STEVEN ERLANGER , LONYA, Hungary.

I will create a stub when I have a minute. -Irpen 15:54, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Traditional names

One more question: how common is the use of names like Poltavshchyna, Chernihivshchyna, etc., when referring to the oblasti (as opposed to historic regions)? I guess this is more common for some than others. Which oblasti have such forms? I'd like to go through them systematically and make sure they all have the traditional names listed, and linked in cases where an article exists like Volhynia or Galicia (Eastern Europe). —Michael Z. 2005-05-13 15:51 Z

A very good point! I almost forgot about these names. Yes indeed, such names are common when referring to oblasti in Ukrainian. For every oblast capital (almost every), there is a -shchyna word for oblast'. Besides, although less commonly, such terms are sometimes used even in Russian language media in Ukraine, with the Russian variant version of the city: :Київщина/Киевщина, Харкiвщина/Харьковщина, etc. Going through the {{Administrative divisions of Ukraine}} template alphabetically, the names used in Ukrainian are (I hope my memory serves me well, and I will write them in Ukrainian, being not an expert in transliteration):

Черкащина, Чернiгiвщина, maybe Чернiвеччина (not sure), Днiпропетровщина, Донечина (not sure), Iвано-Франкiвщина, Харкiвщина, Херсонщина, Хмельничина (not 100% sure), Кiровоградщина, Львiвщина, Миколаївщина, Одещина, Полтавщина, Рiвенщина, Сумщина, Тернопiльщина, Вiнничина, Волинщина (less sure but I think that's right), Закарпаття (don't think there is a -shchyna form for this), Запорiжчина, Житомирщина. Maybe there is also a UA word "Кримщина", but maybe not and maybe some Crimeans may find it as offensive as some Ukrainophiles find "KIEV". If I made an error is some term, it will be corrected in WP sooner or later. Also, we might google-test to check them.

In addition to Zakarpattia and Volhynia, there is another traditional area term "Slobozhanshchina" for Khar'kov area, but I already put in in that oblast article some time ago. Nothing else comes from the top of my head. Cheers, Irpen 18:24, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added these to the table at Subdivisions of Ukraine#Oblasts. I modified a couple slightly, based on a quick Google test and my intuition. Please have a look for any mistakes. —Michael Z. 2005-05-15 01:18 Z

I just looked at Sloboda Ukraine article. It seems that it is not correct to use Slobozhanshchina as just another term for Kharkiv Oblast. Slobozhanshchina is not the same thing as Kharkivshchyna but it is still correct to use it fot the area. Another historic region that didn't come to my mind earlier is Bukovyna/Bukovina whose parts are now in Chernivtsi Oblast, Odessa Oblast, Moldavia and Romania. Irpen 17:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Запорiжчина is wrong! Запоріжжя is right! 95.69.152.59 (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC) UeArtemis[reply]

Drogobych and Izmail Oblasts; Moldavian ASSR

I have a few old atlases which say that in fact in the 1950's two more oblasts existed in UkSSR. From an excellent collection of topographical maps here is a 1940 atlas, which on Ukraine's map (don't worry its the site that has the permission) clearly shows the Drogobych Oblast and the Moldavian ASSR, as well as the original 1939 border. I have a few late 1940's atlases which show the Izmail oblast as well (basically the part of Odessa oblast that was annexed from Bessarabia in 1940). So how should we present this quite important information? Kuban kazak 00:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Towns vs. cities

Guys, I've took a look at the Category:Towns in Ukraine and found its content highly questionnable. At least half of those "towns" are actually cities (like Brody, which is a raion center, or Nova Kakhovka). Actually, we ran out of towns in Soviet times, when centralized economy and propiska were established :). Officially, Ukraine only has "mista" (cities), "selyscha" and "sela". I doubt any misto can be regarded as "towns". So we should resort that category AlexPU 18:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest next: Misto - City, CMT (selysce mis'koho typu), selo - village. The were only those 3 categories present in Ukrainian geography. If I'm correct by definition, settlement with the number of people 1-2 000 is a village, 2 000-20 000 - town, 20 000 and more - city. But I can easily be wrong. This info has to be somewhere in one of the school textbooks on Geography.--Bryndza 21:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was also puzzled by some Ukrainian cities (mista) being categorized as "towns", and the other as "cities". There is an ongoing discussion on what is city and what is town, but it seems to me that it's rather a matter of custom. I'll stay with Subdivisions of Ukraine recommendation: The typical misto may be considered to be a city, not a town, and will put all mista into Category:Cities in Ukraine. It was proposed to name "selysche mis'kogo typu" as "townlet", but I don't like the idea. I would rather name them towns or villages. Uapatriot 08:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Towns are urbinized settlement. It should be noted that aside urbanized settlement there also other settlement which are very very small populated places and usually part of a rural council (silrada). Also mista - cities have three subcategories. There are cities of special status, cities of regional significance, cities of district significance. Another populated places are villages - sela. Some villages are also the same rural councils, others constitute those councils in combination with other villages or settlement. It should be noted that aside of rural councils, there are city councils and town councils. And last but not least, there are districts within some cities, usually those are with special status or regional significance. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Structure pattern for all big cities

I suggest to establish the structure pattern for pages of all big cities of Ukraine, based on the experience of Kiev (and other big cities of the world, after we use their experienve on Kiev page first). See the idea here. Ukrained 13:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ending -y, -yy or -yi?

What would be the correct way to name Ukrainian cities with "-ий" at the end? There are already 150+ cities in Category:Cities in Ukraine. Among them:

but:

On the top of that, as person's name:

Bohdan Khmelnytsky

In Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia the city names are given with -yy. Uapatriot 07:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For modern ua cities we're using the National romanization system for geographic names, so most of those should be -yi endings. For other names we haven't settled on a standard—in the case of Khmelnytsky, that seems to be the most common spelling found in books, etc. See Romanization of Ukrainian, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic), under development. —Michael Z. 2006-02-14 14:18 Z

I'm for -yi wherever possible. Let's DO settle is as a standard. -yy spells weird for an English speaker. Ukrained 19:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is "when in doubt go with Britannica" but I will follow on what others decide and will not interfere if someone corrects me using the wrong transliteration. This is by far the least hot issue but consistensy is always good. --Irpen 20:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a suffix, it's an ending. -Iopq 03:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanization of Ukrainian. There is no strict standards. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team cooperation

Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Places WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 18:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 15:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev metropolitan area

The article introduces a new unit of Ukrainian subdivisions, metropolitan area, which we have not been using so far.

First, let me point out that the terminology "metropolitan area" is internationally recognized (see List of metropolitan areas by population and Largest European metropolitan areas), but each country is using a specific definition of a metropolitan area.

Second, across countries, the definition of metropolitan area is either given as an administrative unit, or as a statistical unit.

Third, to the best of my knowledge, in Ukraine neither the lawmakers, nor the State Statistic Committee defines or uses the "metropolitan area" term.

Thus, how should we deal with the metropolitan areas for Ukraine, not breaking WP:NOR, or WP:V on one side, and yet presenting the phenomenon of metropolitan areas on the other? (Related discussion: uk:Обговорення:Міські агломерації України) --MapLover 23:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, hmm... I have no idea right now and will probably answer later... But I think that we should have the articles, although being in accorance with WP:NOR will be difficult. —dima/s-ko/ 00:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was th7e intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Ukraine

I'm not a member of this particular WikiProject, but I think that it would be even better if it were expanded into all things Ukrainian, not just the country's subdivisions. In short, I propose that we turn this into a WikiProject Ukraine. Any thoughts? -- Aivazovsky 02:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While that is not a bad idea, there are currently very little active Ukrainian Wikipedia editors. Off the top of my head, I can count no more than 10 editors... I actually did think about this at one time, widening the scope of the project, but I currently see no real need, but it would be nice to have the WikiProject. I don't think it will hurt to just rename this project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine and just slowly transform it into the full-scale country project.. I suggest proposing this at the Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related Wikipedia notice board so those who do not watch this page can see the proposition there.. —dima/s-ko/ 02:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine expansion discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Description: This project would aim to clean up and collect articles related to Ukraine, the largest country in Europe not to have its own project.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

Chris 22:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—dima /talk/ 22:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Alex^(T|C|E) 22:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Kuban Cossack 23:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Boguslav 17:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

When is it going to be started?? --Boguslav 17:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basicly anytime. We already have five users, and perhaps more will come... but let's just wait a little while longer 'till more users come and join. —dima /talk/ 17:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while its good to have a WikiProject, this will likely duplicate the functions of the Ukrainian portal (in some ways), so we should be careful not to do that.. Browsing around portals, I came across the Kent portal, which links the portal and WikiProject together.. and keeps some things specific for portal and some for WikiProject, I would suggest doing that. —dima /talk/ 17:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing, is that there is already a WikiProject Ukrainian subdivisions (although not too active, besides me :), so I think that we can probably somehow incorporate the two WikiProject Ukraine, and Ukraine subdivisions together. What do you guys think? —dima /talk/ 18:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dima, I like the idea of expansion of the existing project from its narrow scope, rather than reinventing the wheel. Would the members go for it? A nationwide project, rather than one for the geography alone, seems much better to me. Chris 23:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they will go for it. There was a proposal at the project's talk to transform it into a whole-country WikiProject some time ago, and no one besides me responded there, to which I agreed... And if we do that, we can move the current geo-wikiproject to a subpage, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine/Subdivisions, as there is some useful information on that page —dima /talk/ 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there are already six members besides you there, and five more here, let's make this happen! Chris 20:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KOATUU codes

Is it reasonable to add uk:КОАТУУ codes in infoboxes ? This information is actively used and stable (i.e. not going to change often). It's available at ukrstat.kmu.gov.ua. It will allow to judge how complete information is in Wikipedia about Ukrainian administrative subdivision. Also it can serve as additional verifiability source. --TAG 12:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it would be nice to translate the article first. I'll try to get started on that a bit later. — Alex^(T|C|E) 01:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major map project

I just wanted to let anyone who might be interested know that I'm in the middle of a major map project of Ukraine and its Oblasts. I'm creating an SVG map basically from scratch, since I cannot find any SVG map out there that is of a sufficient quality to satisfy my high level of expectation. I wanted to let people know about this in order to get feedback while I'm working on it, as well as to let people know that such a map is being made, and so not to replicate each others' work - if you are of a mind to create a high-quality SVG map of Ukraine before I finish, let me know and we can work together...

To make this map, I'm using InkScape, and have plotted out a very precise grid based on the Longitude/Latitude system, incorporating the correct distortion into it so that the curvature of the earth is reflected in the grid system, which meant finding the distance between each degree of longitude for every degree of latitude on the area that the map will be covering, and then converting that distance given in kilometers to the number of pixels on the graphic table I'm creating (quite an undertaking, that!). The end result of this is a grid that contains 190 "squares" measuring one degree on each side of eather latitude or longitude, covering the region from 20 t 39 degrees East, and 43 to 53 degrees N. I'm currently in the process of going through and replicating every square within this grid directly from GoogleEarth - borrowing freely from existing maps for ready reference - but obtaining the correct data directly from satellite photos. This will take some time to do, since it is very painstaking, but the results of it will be highly accurate to an incredible degree.

I am incorporating all major bodies of water - which means coastlines, major rivers, and major lakes. I also am incorporating international borders and the borders of each Ukrainian oblast. Because this is an SVG document, the result will be that it may be zoomed up to a very large degree (over 2000 times, at least), with almost no distortion, something the "dot matrix" pixelated JPG, Bitmap, and NPG formats cannot replicate - indeed, it is the Wikipedia policy to create maps using SVG, and to replace existing non-SVG maps with SVG ones.

The end result of this will be a map that may be used to replace existing Oblast maps (with the corresponding oblast highlighted in whatever color is agreed on), as well as a general reference map that I hope will be very useful for anyone wishing to reference a geographical place in Ukrain, Moldova, or Romania (since all three of those countries will also be completely included in the map).

Again, just putting it out there for now - I expect I'll complete this project within a month or two from now - I've already devoted about that much time to it already. One thing I'm debating: whether or not to keep the latitude/longitude grid. I could make two separate maps, one with the grid and one without, and upload both. It would be greatly useful for some applications, I suspect, to have that grid reference there on the map... At any rate, any feedback or input is greatly appreciated. --Saukkomies ^talk 05:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Oleg Sentsov#Requested move 21 October 2016

The above-referenced discussion regarding the proposed move of Oleg Sentsov to Oleh Sentsov has been relisted on October 30, 2016 for additional comments. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Oleg Sentsov#Is it time for another move discussion?

The above-referenced exchange of views, initiated on March 1, 2017 as a continuation of the previous discussion regarding the same topic, may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]