Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Long-standing consensus

This article violates the long-standing consensus that has prevailed in Ukraine for years to list both Russian and Ukrainian names. Since only a couple of editors have participated in this discussion, it cannot be considered a Wikipedia consensus that overrides the previous consensus until more editors have agreed with it. --Taivo (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It does not say not to list both Russian and Ukrainian names. It is referring to article titles. This was discussed at WP:WikiProject Ukraine and developed collaboratively. Matters of article content, i.e. the infobox, are not part of naming conventions. RGloucester — ☎ 04:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If it only applies to article titles, then I have no problem with it. It was referenced by another editor as applying to content. If it does not apply to content, then my edit was in error. --Taivo (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, it only applies to article titles. If an editor is citing this with regard to article content, he is doing so incorrectly. The "naming conventions" series of information pages only refer to article naming. RGloucester — ☎ 03:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Districts (raions) of Donetsk city

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine

What's the convention for naming districts of cities in Ukraine? If one takes a look at the category Category:Raions of Donetsk, one sees "Kiev Raion" or "Kirov Raion", and the like. This strikes me as odd. All sources I've seen refer to these as Kyivsky district, Kirovsky district, &c. I especially think it is odd to use "Kiev", given that this particular district has no common name, meaning that the standard Ukrainian transliteration should apply. How exactly is this laid out? RGloucester — ☎ 04:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Does no one have any ideas about this? It is still confusing for me. As a rule, I prefer translations when appropriate, i.e. "district" over "raion", and the like. However, as I know most fellows here are opposed to that, I won't try and push for that again. However, I think that maybe an exception should be made for raions of cities, as opposed to usual raions. It is somewhat confusing to refer these raions of cities as "raions", and it is not at all common in English. Perhaps raions of cities should be called "so and so" district? That's much better than "Kiev Raion, Donetsk", which doesn't appear to be common anywhere. RGloucester — ☎ 22:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This project used to name district articles (not just city districts, but regular districts as well) using the transliterations of their Ukrainian spellings, but that changed at some point (I'm not sure there ever was a discussion, but I didn't pay attention that close, so I could have missed it). Now all the districts are named either after their administrative centers (resulting sometimes in different titles for the articles about the districts whose names in Ukrainian are identical) or, as is the case with the city districts, the proper part is simply translated (resulting in such odd constructs as "Factory Raion"). Not sure what's up with that. As you noted, hardly any Ukrainian districts (raions) would have a well-established common name in English, meaning that transliterating the original name is the only sensible thing to do in the vast majority (if not in all) of cases. As for the use of "raion" instead of "district", both are English words (albeit the former is a somewhat obscure loanword), so either is acceptable, as long as the usage is consistent.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 29, 2015; 13:11 (UTC)

Well, would anyone be up for reverting to the "Ukrainian transliteration" system? The absurdity of "Factory Raion" makes it clear that this simply isn't how these districts are referred to in English. I'm all for translation, when it makes sense, but this is instance where it simply does not. If the translations are not commonly used in sources, they should be thrown out. I'd recommend the following: use Ukrainian transliterations + district for raions of cities. Leave regular raions alone. That will make the distinction clearer, in English, and aligns more with how sources describe these entities. RGloucester — ☎ 14:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@DDima: As you created many of the district articles, what do you think about this matter? RGloucester — ☎ 19:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester and Ezhiki: The original goal of having the naming convention of "administrative center" + "raion" was to remove the long "skyi" endings on district articles, making it easier for English speakers to understand what a "raion" is in its relationship to their administrative centers. Since we already had articles like Donetsk Oblast instead of DonetskA Oblast, then the same format was to be applied to raions. (If I'm not mistaken, it was proposed by MapLover in 2008, who himself is no longer participating on Wikipedia).

This system works great for the general Ukrainian raions since each one of them has an administrative center on which we can base the name. However, city raions do not give us such a luxury, so a hybrid mix was created by Aleksandr Grigoryev. I was never one in favor of naming articles such as Factory Raion as I find it quite odd myself. I believe his reasoning was in favor of Wikipedia:Use English. I myself prefer the Ukrainian variant of Zavodskyi Raion (but that isn't consistent with the standard of not having the -skyi endings—then again, that can be dropped for city raions as proposed by you above).

I agree that if outside readers are looking up about yet another separatist attack on Donetsk's "Zavodskyi Raion," then they might be somewhat bewildered by this hybrid mix. As long as the naming convention is all standardized, uniform, and consistent—it doesn't make much of a difference for me. § DDima 20:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so that's why city raion names end up looking odd. Well, as I said, I'd advocate leaving regular raions alone, as their names make sense. However, city rations, I believe, should use "skyi" ending + "district". This is in line with how sources describe them, more reasonable, and allows and easy differentiation between the two. RGloucester — ☎ 20:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

<*ec*>Well, the difference between the oblasts and raions is that the former tend to have established English names (so their names need not be transliterated), while the latter normally don't (so transliteration is the most reasonable option—any other approach would pretty much amount to original research). It's the same with the names of obscure localities—they hardly ever have established names in English and are normally referred to by a transliterated Ukrainian name. You would not, for example, rename the Nyzhnohirskyi article Lower Mountains just to get rid of the "-skyi" ending, would you? :) WP:UE itself states to "follow English-language usage", not to "use only English words". For obscure place names and lower-level divisions, it is an established practice in English to use romanized local names; that's the whole reason why BGN/PCGN romanization exists.

Anyway, since I don't edit articles about Ukraine much, I'm only here in an advisory capacity. I'm sure you'll folks figure this out :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 29, 2015; 20:46 (UTC)

Yea, I thought raion is already a well established term as there are a lot of articles, particularly, concerning Ukraine that have its districts named as raions. I kind of favor the use of district over raion though. When I joined the project, there already were a lot of articles named as raions rather than district. The city district names were based on convention used for Kiev. I case of Kiev, if the name of raion derived from a name of locality such as former village or town (Amur and Nizhnodniprovsk are former settlements) that were incorporated into the city, such name was not translated into English, otherwise raions such as Industrialnyi or Korabelnyi would be translated. I believe there was a discussion in regards of the -skyi ending use in names. We decided to get rid of the ending. Also, please, note that when the Ukraine's territory was occupied by the Western Powers such as Nazi Germany, they used the same system without endings of -skyi. RGloucester, your argument about differentiating raions sounds strange. We need to stick to one convention no matter if it is a city ration or a regular raion. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

We need to do what is done by RS, and RS use "skyi + district" for city raions. I can understand the justification for "administrative centre + raion" for regular raions, as explained by DDima, but there is no such justification for the bizarre translation/transliterations of city raions that are not found in sources. I think the separation is perfectly reasonable. City districts are commonly called "districts" in English, whereas "district" sounds odd to the English ear when referring to regular raions, as they are more like what we call counties. Regardless, all that I know is that the present system for city raions is not supported by RS. RGloucester — ☎ 20:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If we are revising this subject about raions, what are you thoughts on raions that carry names such as Chervonozavodskyi or Tsentralnomiskyi? I think I already created an article or two named as City Center Raion (instead of Tsentralnomiskyi). What are your thoughts on that? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, your argument about "RS" (whatever that means) also strange. As I mentioned before Ukraine was occupied by Nazi Germany which did not use ending of -skyi in naming their "reichsgebits" and "teilbezirks". Also, coming back to differentiating raions and districts, is it not infringing on original research by doing that? Just asking. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that these districts do not have a common English name, meaning that they should be left as transliterations. A translation can be given in the article, but I don't think the title should be translated, unless we can find RS that refer to them as such. I don't think the Reich is relevant here. It isn't OR if RS maintain that distinction. RGloucester — ☎ 21:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think you are missing my point here, but I will cooperate no matter what the convention would be. Also, what about all the historical administrative divisions like voivodeships and governorates? Are we going to change them as well? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Why would we? RGloucester — ☎ 21:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In Russian Kiev Governorate is called Kievskaya guberniya, Kiev County is called Kievskiy uyezd (or Kyivskyi povit in Ukrainian). Or we are taking even earlier period, there was a Halytska zemlia as part of the Ruthenian Voivodeship (Ruske wojewodstwo). Also, about your statement that districts sound odd to the English ear. Have you checked the articles on administrative divisions of France? Are those names not an odd sound to the English ear? Just asking. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a good example, Halicz Land, instead of zemlia halicka. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That's very different, because it is a historical region discussed in sources with that name. There are no "districts" of France. We call them "arrondissements". As you are most likely aware, a large part of English vocabulary comes from French, and so we have no problem with French loan words. "District" can in theory be translated as "arrondissements", but that's not usually done. "Quartier" in French is more like what in English we call a "district". The word "district" also exists in French. Regardless, these comparisons don't make any sense. They have no relevance. The only thing that matters is how these units are described by RS. I can tell you that "Factory Raion" is not a common way of referring to anything. RGloucester — ☎ 21:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, RGloucester, what about the city districts of Kiev? We will have to redo them. By the way I found an encyclopedic support for your argument. Here is an article on Kharkiv at the Encyclopedia of Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we'd have to redo all the city districts, but that shouldn't be that hard. RGloucester — ☎ 21:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, if there are no objections, I'd like to start working on this. RGloucester — ☎ 04:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no objections. Perhaps it is be better to differentiate between city raions and regular raions as such (not to mention that they have a different legal standing and are on different levels of administrative subdivisions). If that's what we're rolling with amidst consensus, I'll help move all this stuff and fix all the broken links and such. § DDima 17:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I'll start to work on Category:Raions of cities in Ukraine in a bit. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, I think it might be worthwhile to write up a guideline on Ukrainian places, so that the scheme is clear. RGloucester — ☎ 18:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've made a draft: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places). Let's move this discussion there, and sort this out nice and simple. RGloucester — ☎ 19:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks for creating the draft. May be a related question then: I often see Oblasts and Raions used with articles (the Donetsk Oblast, the Olevsk Raion). When I see it, I remove "the". Is this actually correct? Should we add this detail to the manual?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

In English, we'd never say "the Donetsk Oblast". We might say "the region of Donetsk", or "the oblast of Donetsk", but never "the Donetsk Oblast". RGloucester — ☎ 21:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not the answer I got from a professional linguist a few (well, quite a few) years ago :) According to him, either variant is acceptable (although he leaned towards not using the article as well, stating that using it sounds somewhat parochial to his ear), as long as the usage is consistent. Based on that recommendation, I've been removing the definite article ever since... The only exception he could think of was "the Jewish Autonomous Oblast".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 30, 2015; 21:56 (UTC)

It sounds more than parochial, to me. It sounds plain odd. I agree with him on the exception, though. RGloucester — ☎ 22:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It might be also good to discuss disambiiguation rules since we started the discussion anyway. What is now current practice is different from what is here and als from what we use for Russia. (I do not have any opinion for which system would be better but since I edit articlers on administrative divisions it would be good to fix smth).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I only transcribed what I saw in practice. What did I get wrong? RGloucester — ☎ 21:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

For instance, we have Romaniv (urban-type settlement), which was renamed from Romaniv (UTS).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems usage is mixed. Either way, I'd definitely not recommend that form of disambiguation. It is much less comprehensible, and gives the reader less information. There is also the possibility of having two uts of the same name. RGloucester — ☎ 22:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am also not a fan of it, but I prefer not to determine any policies for Ukrainian articles for many reasons. I would go with any policy provided it is consistent.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I said before, if no one objects, I'd like to start working on city raions. Does any have any suggestions for the best way to start implementing the above proposal? Should I just go ahead and start moving stuff? RGloucester — ☎ 22:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I've done Category:Raions of Donetsk. Before I do anymore, I'd like someone to check out what've done and see if it was correct, or if anything needs fixing. RGloucester — ☎ 23:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What about eastern cities of Ukraine with Russian names such as Sevastopol that has Gagarin Raion. Does it need to changed to Haharinskyi District?? And what about Krasnohvardiyskyi District, Tsentralnomiskyi District or Chervonozavodskyi District? Is that normal? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

About Romaniv issue, in the Ukrainian language it could be a last name, therefore in the Ukrainian Wikipedia it was differentiated that way. Romaniv should automatically go to the urban-type settlement, while for people with such last name one should look for Romaniv (name). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as Crimea is concerned, I think we should leave whatever is already there alone. We don't want to spark a PoV war for control of Crimea-related articles. RGloucester — ☎ 17:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your copy-paste-move and have done it properly. In the future, please move and not copy and paste.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think one should never use transliterations if there is an established English language equivalent. Let's use "district" rather than "raion" and "region" rather than "oblast". If there is no equivalent, one should use transliterations, but there are certain rules for them. For example, something "Haharinsky" would probably be wrong transliteration. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Outdated wording re: “Kyiv, this usage is not common”

I updated the wording “Kyiv, this usage is not common” to “Kyiv, this form was not common historically,” but my edit was reverted.

Please consult WP:Naming conventions (geographic names), especially the section #Widely accepted name, which gives suggestions that include:

• “Disinterested, authoritative reference works are almost always reliable if they are current.” – Most English-language standards updated in the last few years use Kyiv, including the authoritative Ukrainian database of toponyms, the BGN GeoNames database, the LOC Name Authority File, the OCLC Virtual International Authority File, IATA’s database of locations, the UN, the EU, etcetera.
• “English-language news media can also be very reliable sources.” – The Associated Press’s AP Styleguide recommends Kyiv, not Kiev, and directly guides news in 15,000 sources. The New York Times, the BBC, the Guardian, the Washington Post, the Globe and Mail all use Kyiv. As of right now, Google News results for the last week give me exactly 50–50 usage, 159 results each for Kyiv and Kiev (reminder: Google only shows the correct number on the very last page of results: you may have to click “Tools” to reveal the figures).

It’s patently false to say current usage of Kyiv “is not common.” This should be updated. user:Ymblanter, please reply here. —Michael Z. 2019-11-27 18:00 z

I reverted myself, because indeed Kyiv is certainly common at least in Ukraine, where it is basically impossible for anybody now to write Kiev. I am not generally happy however with you introducing this edit. We just had a discussion at Talk:Kiev, which, against your objections, was closed with a moratorium. It is clear that you feel strongly about the subject, and our policies do not recommend making edits in this situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Please cite the specific policy that should discourage me from the factual edit I made here.

If you are happy enough with the passage to restore it, it would seem that you’re simply “not generally happy” because it was I who made this edit. You’re literally describing your emotional state as the reason for reverting my edit. Maybe you shouldn’t revert my edits, since it is clear that you feel strongly about me. —Michael Z. 2019-11-28 00:11 z

Yes, I’m just making a point. I have generally found it’s more productive on Wikipedia discussions to talk about changes in articles, and not try to make a lot of assertions about the people you’re talking to and their feelings and inner thoughts. —Michael Z. 2019-11-28 00:15 z

Request for policies update after Kiev->Kyiv page move

Per resolved move request, "Kyiv is the better title given usage in reliable, English-language sources". Thus, suggestion to "write Kiev" in articles is outdated and needs to be replaced. — Exlevan (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Infobox advice

This guide could benefit editors with some advice on filling out {{infobox settlement}} consistently. A few issues come to mind.

• There has been controversy in the past over any the use of the transliteration fields, translit_lang1, translit_lang1_type, translit_lang1_info, etcetera, which allow up to 6 transliterations from 2 languages.
• name, native_name, official_name, and other_name are used inconsistently. Different combinations may display differently, and we should pick the best one.
• official_name almost never contains the correct name. The Toponymic Guidelines for international use recommend a direct romanization of the native name retaining capitalization, and not anglicized, e.g., Kyivska oblast, not Kyiv Oblast, and Pivnichnokrymskyi kanal not North Crimean Canal. This is what will be found in online maps and other sources, and should appear in every article for searchability.
• What else?

 —Michael Z. 19:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Kyiv/Kiev revisited

This page currently recommends the spelling Kiev over Kyiv (WP:KIEV):

Whilst the standard transliteration of the Ukrainian name of the city known as Kiev in the English language is Kyiv, this form was not common historically.^{[note 4]} For this reason, write Kiev, which is the common English form derived from a transliteration of the Russian name of the city, and not Kyiv.

One of the main arguments for this (see above) is that our article on the city used to be named Kiev, based on a consensus that that spelling was the common name in English. The article has now been moved to Kyiv, after a lengthy RM discussion failed to reach a consensus on which spelling was more common, but concluded that Kyiv was preferred in light of WP:MODERNPLACENAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. Is it therefore time to revisit this advice?

I would suggest rewording to something that recognises both spellings as acceptable in English and applies the principle of MOS:VAR. For example:

Kiev is the traditional name of the capital of Ukraine in English. Kyiv is the standard transliteration of the Ukrainian name of the city and its current official name. Both forms may be used on Wikipedia.^{[note 4]} Within a given article, use one form consistently, and do not change an article from one form to another unless there is a substantial reason and a consensus to do so.

– Joe (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This information page has a lot of specific guidance that is redundant with our general guidelines. That material is unnecessary, confusing, and prone to getting out-of-sync with real guidelines (as the Kyiv example demonstrates). It should probably be weeded out. (The page also has some unreferenced background and explanatory material, and it would serve editors to refer to encyclopedia articles for this purpose instead.) It would be best if this was just a very brief summary and guide to anything not covered by other materials. So I support any effort that trims the fat. —Michael Z. 19:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

P.S., be bold. —Michael Z. 19:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I tried that on this page before and it didn't go so well, so I thought I should at least wait for objections :) – Joe (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Which "real guidelines" are you referring to? This seems to be the page of choice for naming conventions of Ukrainian places, and the key idea that Ukrainian romanisation should be the primary choice seems to be aptly presented. Place Clichy (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Place Clichy: "Page of choice" is a matter of perspective. In the sense that it's the only guideline on Ukrainian place names? Sure. In the sense that it actually has consensus behind it? Not so clear. In its current from it was largely written by one editor and as far as I know was never the subject of an explicit discussion to promote it to a guideline. Instead it's tagged as an information page, which I think is a bit misleading since it contains a lot of novel recommendations which aren't found in the real guideline it purportedly "describes". The majority of recent edits and discussions have been about the Kyiv/Kiev dispute which has not really been resolved. It can't really said to represent a stable consensus and perhaps as a result it's rarely cited by other editors. That said, I think it's a fine guideline, and if we can come to a reasonable compromise on the Kyiv/Kiev issue, it probably can be formally promoted to one. – Joe (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Cleaning up this page and providing a simple consensual guideline cannot harm. I came here because this naming convention was citing in a discussion requesting the renaming of a large number of categories. Place Clichy (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The proposition above by Joe Roe is actually pretty good. The ideas that both forms are correct in English, and that "rough" consensus has been recognized to rename Kyiv and not beyond are key messages that must be conveyed. If we want to try and give more precise advice on when to use either Kyiv or Kiev, I suggest mentioning the notions of modern usage (c. post-independence) vs. historical usage, and of derivative names for which specific use or historiographic conventions can be observed, such ad Dynamo Kyiv, Chicken Kiev, Kievan Rus′ or Kiev Governorate. I tried to convey that in this version, but was (partially reverted). I therefore withdrew changes to the stable version until a consensus is reached here, per WP:BRD. Place Clichy (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to over-specify; we can probably trust editors' judgement and the normal processes to decide when an exception to the general guidance is warranted. For example, while Kyivan Rus' is undoubtedly less common than Kievan Rus', it is sometimes used in scholarly literature, and so it might make sense to use it for consistency in an article that otherwise uses the Kyiv spelling. – Joe (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This page is a distraction. It says right at the top what it is not, but it is already being cited in other discussions as if it were guidance.

It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, but rather intends to describe some aspect(s) of the Wikipedia general conventions on place names.

It is only intended to be a summary of 1) other guidelines and 2) specific consensus decisions. In the first role it fails because it is redundant, and in the second it will always be in danger of becoming out of date. It is entirely much too specific, and sounds like a policy, which we know it is not. It should be pared down to the most basic and spare startup guide for editors who want to concentrate on the subject area.

For Kyiv and any related articles, its advice should be replaced with a note that the main article has been moved but discussions are ongoing to determine consensus on all related matters. —Michael Z. 17:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the page to note that the move took place, and that a consensus has not emerged on the subject of other usage. I think this is the best approach for now. However, I think it is clear that the page move will inevitably mean a shift to using 'Kyiv' in article bodies for articles on contemporary subjects, and I expect the guidance here should eventually be updated as such.

I see that there is some question about the nature of this page. If the circumstances of its creation are not clear, please let me inform you. Ukrainian place articles were a complete mess of inconsistencies until this page was created. The main purpose of the page was to clarify the naming schemes for things like cities, oblats, and raions, and to suppress recurring arguments over the appropriate transliteration to use at a given time that emerged during Wikipedia's expanding coverage of the Ukrainian crisis. By and large, the page served to document actual practice on Wikipedia, rather than establish new rules. The only 'new' piece of guidance developed here and at the WikiProject Ukraine page was the establishment of a coherent scheme for how to title raion-related articles, and especially urban district articles, which had been all over the place. That scheme has now been stable for a very long time, and is working well. Perhaps it is hard to appreciate the purpose of this page at this point, when its practices have been stable for years, but if you had seen the mess we had before hand (with weird half-translated names for articles like Factory Raion), I think you'd all appreciate it. The debate over Kiev/Kyiv was never its central focus, nor an important factor in its creation. RGloucester — ☎ 15:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I now see that there is a discussion at Talk:Kyiv#Related articles. I suppose the result of that discussion will determine what we include here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with the shift to using 'Kyiv' in article bodies for articles on contemporary subjects, and with the discussion at

Talk:Kyiv#Related articles expected to provide clarity on some topics. Place Clichy (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:KYIV has now been updated in accordance with the closing of the RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 16:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hromadas

• @Yulia Romero, DDima, and Ezhiki: This page needs to be updated to take into account the creation of hromadas, and the creation of various articles on hromadas. I'd like to invite a few editors I know are working on this topic to discuss how Wikipedia should refer to hromadas, and how hromada-related articles should be titled. It seems that the present working consensus is to refer to hromadas by the transliteration of the Ukrainian name, rather than with translations like 'united territorial community'. I don't know if anyone has any opinion on this subject, but the simplest way we can deal with this problem is write that hromadas should be referred to as "XXXX Hromada", unless anyone has an objection. RGloucester — ☎ 15:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

As I explained in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy on 19 September 2020 it does indeed seems that the consensus has become to refer to hromadas by the transliteration of the Ukrainian name. So I also think that hromadas should be referred to as "XXXX Hromada". Fortunately English Wikipedia now seems to have 3 articles about hromadas (being the administrative units):

• Chkalovska United territorial community
• Deliatyn Settlement Community
• Ternopil City hromada

, of which now 2 need to be renamed (not Ternopil City hromada) I do believe.

PS We are getting swamped with maintenance work on Ukrainian Wikipedia articles..... Because of the administrative reform to merge most Raions of Ukraine most article about the Raions of Ukraine are either completely outdated because the Raion does not exist anymore or the map in the article is outdated and also most of the Ukraine region (oblast) templates are completely outdated (because they list Raions that don't exist anymore) + the Kiev->Kyiv page move has created thousands of English Wikipedia articles where Kiev->(has to be changed in)Kyiv.... I don't have the time to do all this changes plus updating Kiev->Kyiv Raions of Ukraine Wikipedia articles is boring as...... I make edits to learn something, I never had an interest in learning the names of the Raions of Ukraine...... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

O, I forgot , most of the Ukraine region (oblast) templates are also completely outdated because they don't list any of the hromadas of their Oblast (keep in mind that the forming of hromadas is now an ongoing process that could take years to finish.....). (I am sorry to say that) I don't have an interest either in learning the names of the hromadas of Ukraine...... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I too have been too busy to being doing much Wikipedia work at all, but I'd like to help in setting up some clear scheme for sorting out this situation. As always, thank you for your hard work, Yulia. When thinking about Hromadas, I wonder how we classify them...I presume they are a third-level unit, technically a subdivision of a raion, but administratively superseding them. Is this correct? RGloucester — ☎ 17:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work too, we seem to have lost some experienced Ukrainian Wikipedia articles editors lately, so it is nice to see an experienced Ukrainian Wikipedia articles editor like you still being around! As far as I understood the Hromadas are supposed to replace the Raions.... which would make them de-facto second level units and de-facto Raions third-level units..... If I understood Ukrainian media correct the Hromadas have much more power and financing then the Raions ever had.... As for the official classification.... I did not come across information about that. I do have made a ready to copy-paste reference for the new Raions by the way: it is here — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed update

Here is my proposed update to the third-level divisions section, based on what you've said above. What do you think, Yulia? I am proposing that this be placed in the third-level section for now, on the basis that the constitutional reform that would eliminate raions and replace them with hromadas as a second-level division has not yet gone through.

Districts are divided into hromadas ("territorial communities"), a category that includes cities, villages, and rural and urban-type settlements. Since 2015, the hromadas are in the process of being merged to form new "amalgamated hromadas" (also known as "united territorial communities" or "amalgamated territorial communities"). The names of hromadas and post–2015 amalgamated hromadas should be transliterated into Latin letters with the Ukrainian national system. Do not use transliterations derived from Russian names for hromadas, e.g. write Dmytrivka, not Dmitrovka.

• When referring to the administration of an urban-type settlement, write "settlement Council", e.g. Balabyne Council, not Balabyne Settlement Council or Balabyne Town Council.
• When referring to the administration of a rural settlement, write "settlement Rural Council", e.g. Avhustynivka Rural Council, not Avhustynivka Village Council or Avhustynivka Council.
• An article about a post–2015 amalgamated hromada should be titled "administrative centre Amalgamated Hromada", e.g. Ternopil Amalgamated Hromada for the hromada with its administrative centre in Ternopil.

I figured that it makes sense to omit the 'city' and other similar descriptors, like 'settlement', in the hromada names, and these don't seem to be commonly used in practice. A more WP:CONCISE title is usually preferable, unless disambiguation is required. RGloucester — ☎ 17:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I need to some time to process your ideas..... I'll get back to you.... if I don't forget to do that.... would not be the first time — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the proposal to make clear the distinction between the existing hromadas and the amalgamated hromadas. The use of the term hromada was not necessary in English until the rise of the new unit, so I think some people are confused. The process of amalgamation of the former hromadas types, such as cities and rural settlements, into an 'amalgamated hromada', is ongoing. It seems someone tried to carry out a strange merger of United territorial communities of Ukraine into Hromada, and in the process destroyed the distinction between the old regular hromada and new amalgamated ones...I've tried to restore that. RGloucester — ☎ 21:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if we need to more clearly make the distinction between the 'hromada' and 'amalgamated hromada'...reliable sources seem to call them 'united territorial communities', and I am worried that referring to them as just 'hromada' might lead to some confusion. I think it's time to go back to the drawing board. I get 50,000 hits for united territorial community, compared to 8000 for amalgamated hromada. I've therefore reverted the undiscussed merger at United territorial communities of Ukraine (which was apparently carried out by a now globally-locked account). RGloucester — ☎ 21:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Yulia Romero: Any further opinion on this topic? I'm thinking that we should standardise on 'united territorial communities', and get this done. The merge at United territorial communities of Ukraine has already been overturned. RGloucester — ☎ 15:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I, is back.... Sorry for the delay.... I was looking for something..... A couple of days ago (or more.... I can not find the edit...) a user somewhere on English Wikipedia moved a page about United territorial communities of Ukraine to "hromada...." claiming that it was logic to use the Ukrainian name for the administrative units because English Wikipedia does the same for the Raions of Ukraine (who are not referred to here as their more English equivalent "district") and the Oblasts of Ukraine (who are not named "region" or "province" here on English Wikipedia). For consistency within Wikipedia using some form of "hromada" makes a lot of sense. This might not reflect the common English usage rules, but there are not enough English language sources about Ukrainian administrative units for them to have a common English name..... In Ukrainian language press the "United territorial communities of Ukraine" are mostly referred to as "Об'єднані територіальні громади" (or "ОТГ", or "ОT громади"), so I am inclined to support a page move to United territorial hromada or United territorial hromadas. I think this also avoids confusion with the term Hromada as a Ukrainian term for community or public, more precise an association of the people united by mutual interest, position or goal, widely known in Ukraine. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point, but Wikipedia can't very well use a name that gets only 7 hits in a Google search when 'united territorial communities' is commonly used. It really isn't Wikipedia's job to come up with a new name, only to follow RS. If you want a 'common' English name that includes 'hromada', the one that I have found in RS is amalgamated hromada, which is quite common, though not as common as 'united territorial communities. However, considering your point of 'consistency', this might make more sense. RGloucester — ☎ 01:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to muddle this discussion further.... but after doing some Google research myself I found out that research institutions like carnegie and jamestown do call the administrative units "hromada". It is likely that readers from Carnegie Europe and Jamestown Foundation will look for more information on English Wikipedia..... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that usage, but it's only possible to call them 'hromada' after the context has been established, otherwise the distinction between traditional hromada and new hromada is not clear. I'm sure you must be aware that an urban-type settlement, or whatever, is also a hromada in the usual definition posited by the constitution of Ukraine. That's why they the new ones are called 'new', 'united', or 'amalgamated' in the first place. This is an encylopaedia where we need to be clear and concise, and where a specific Ukrainian context is not established (we speak to a generalist audience). I am not opposed to 'amalgamated hromada', but we simply cannot create a misleading title that is not actually used in reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 16:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

After thinking about it I also think "United territorial communities of Ukraine" is a far too general term that makes no sense to common Wikipedia readers (aren't all Oblast together also not the "United territorial communities of Ukraine" one could think). "United territorial communities of Ukraine" probably sound very meaningless to most readers.... Using Wikipedia:NATURALNESS and Wikipedia:RECOGNIZABILITY "United territorial communities of Ukraine" does not sound like the best article title.... So for me it is most logic to do a page move to United territorial hromada or United territorial hromadas. "amalgamated hromada" is I think for most Wikipedia readers a very strange name for a Wikipedia article. As you might have figured out in naming articles I (tend to ignore the constitution of Ukraine and) think of what is the most logic name for the average Wikipedia reader. But Amalgamated hromada seems to be the only tittle we have common ground on....

By the way.... I do not want to be a heckler.... but the Wikipedia article name War in Donbass is (also) not the Wikipedia:ESTABLISHED name of the conflict; for instance the BBC labels it Ukraine conflict (which does not make sense.... it is a war, not a conflict). In fact I never saw an international news media outlet call the War in Donbass War in Donbass...... So I think there is room to be Wikipedia:5P5-likeish (aka (slightly) ignoring reliable sources common naming of the subject of the Wikipedia article) in Wikipedia:Naming articles.... In conclusion for me it is most logic to do a page move to United territorial hromada or United territorial hromadas, but second best for me would be a move to Amalgamated hromada. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I agreed that none of the potential names are particularly 'natural' for an English-speaking reader. At the same, though, we have an obligation to base our observations in RS. I agreed that War in Donbass was probably not the established name of the conflict at the time that article was renamed. However, over time, we can say that it has become the established name, along with variants like "Donbass war" as evidenced by a Google search returning more than a one-hundred thousand hits. In any case, ignoring that tangent, I think that we have two goals here. One, to preserve the Ukrainian word 'hromada', as the translations are confusing and not particularly comprehensible, and because we already use Ukrainian names for oblasts and raions, rather than 'regions' and 'districts'. The other goal is to make clear the distinction between old hromadas and new hromadas. I cannot help but think that the best compromise, which suits both our purposes, and Wikipedia guidelines and policies, is a move to amalgamated hromadas, which is used in reliable sources. In fact, it is even used by the Association of Amalgamated Hromadas. Do you think we can settle this as such? RGloucester — ☎ 00:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

, yes I agree that amalgamated hromadas is the best solution. Let's settle this as such. The Ukrainian government official website on Decentralisation uses it too (in its English version of the website (full of not very easy to read English and light on usable information.... )). And who knows because of Wikipedia that name might become the Wikipedia:ESTABLISHED of the administrative unit (more)...... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and implemented the proposal. Hopefully we can now have a consistent scheme for covering these new hromadas. RGloucester — ☎ 17:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I made some edits on Wikidata to assist you with the transformation (at least I hope I helped....) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Yulia Romero and RGloucester: I'm a little late to the discussion. I've been sporadically on here, but seeing how I was one of the main Ukraine-related geographical editors from way back in the days, I thought I'd chime in. I like the direction where this is going - Amalgamated Hromada does seem like the best option given the options that we were presented. However, we have a huge task in re-coding all of the templates... I think, if we take it step by step, oblast by oblast, we can make sure that this sphere of wiki-Ukraine related articles is up to date and is understandable to the general populace of the English Wiki. I just noticed that the Ukrainian Wikipedia does distinguish the templates according to whether they were based off of the pre-2020 administrative divisions or post-reform (e.g. uk:Шаблон:Чернігівська область (до 2020) vs uk:Шаблон:Чернігівська область I have a knack for editing articles with areas I am familiar with, so at some point within the next few months (if no one get's to it), I'll have a go at tackling {{Chernihiv Oblast}} § DDima 03:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Expanding the style guide

A couple of questions have recently come up:

• just Donbas, or the Donbas with the article?
• capitalized War in Donbas/Donbas War or l.c. war in Donbas/Donbas war?

I think I know the answer to these, but we need a place to discuss such questions and record the consensus advice about them (with reference to the original discussions, whether they be here, in WP:WikiProject Ukraine, or in individual articles). Perhaps it makes sense to expand this page beyond geography to include events, people, and other Ukraine-related style matters. As well, it is already more than just a naming convention, but a style guide on writing and usage. We could use a main MOS:UKRAINE. —Michael Z. 23:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation: settlements in (un)ambiguous raions

The guide currently instructs,

• "If there is more than one settlement with a certain name in an oblast, and there is also a settlement of that name in another oblast, disambiguate with both district and oblast, e.g. write Kalynivka, Vasylkiv Raion, Kyiv Oblast."

However, typically the raion alone can be used to completely disambiguate, since most raions have a name unique in the world. Therefore, including an oblast in an article's title in this case is redundant and goes against WP:CONCISE (and indeed against the usual practice described in WP:PRECISE). Above that, the guide also instructs,

• "If there is more than one settlement with a certain name in an oblast, disambiguate by district, e.g. write Hrabove, Shatsk Raion."

However, this is not sufficiently precise in the instance that a raion alone cannot disambiguate, e.g. Mykolaiv Raion.

For that reason, I propose that we change these rules to

• "If there is more than one settlement with a certain name in an oblast, but the district is unambiguous, disambiguate by district, e.g. write Hrabove, Shatsk Raion."
• "If there is more than one settlement with a certain name in an oblast, and the district is ambiguous, disambiguate with both district and oblast, e.g. write Ukrainka, Mykolaiv Raion, Mykolaiv Oblast."
  • [I did not find a good example of two settlements which required the second sort of disambiguation, so the example of "Ukrainka" is a placeholder.]

For the sake of reference, according to the article Raions of Ukraine, while there used to be 490 raions in Ukraine when the existing guidance was written, there are now only 136 in Ukraine (and about 2000 in all former Soviet countries, according to the page Raion). What are our thoughts on this proposal? —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@RGloucester @Ymblanter Thoughts? —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I actually believe that in the new system, there are no overlapping raion names, every name is unique (would need to check it though). There are many cases of several settlements with the same name being in the same raion, and these mainly should be disambiguated using hromadas. Concerning the main proposal (to drop Oblast), I do not have a very strong opinion on it, but I believe that it the oblast is part of the name there is a bigger chance (although still small for an English speaker) that somebody would recognize it than if only the raion is part of the name. I think this is what is done for American localities: Locality, County, State rather than Locality, County, just because without the state it is not recognizable. Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

While there are 24 oblasts in Ukraine and 56 states, federal districts and inhabited territories in the US, the 136 raions of Ukraine don't compare so well to the 3,143 county-level divisions in the US.

A better analogy is France, which is closer in population size to Ukraine. France is split into 18 of its first subdivision (the région) and 96 of its second division (the départment) – much closer to the 24 and 136 for Ukraine's equivalents. The policy for French settlement disambiguation is to ignore the région and to instead go straight for the more numerous départment. Another thing to consider is that both France and Ukraine are unitary states, while the US is federal, giving US states greater importance than oblasts or régions. I don't suggest we copy the French system entirely by ignoring oblasts, but I do suggest that if including only the départment in the title suffices for French settlements, and if (per the existing policy) including only the raion in the title already suffices "if there is more than one settlement with a certain name in an oblast [and there is no settlement of that name in another oblast]", then including the raion in the title can also suffice regardless of whether there is a settlement of that name in another oblast.

Something else to note is that removing oblasts from some titles would only affect settlements the size of Dubliany, Lviv Raion, Lviv Oblast (with less than 10,000 people) and smaller. Users searching for settlements of this size might be assumed to have a little knowledge of Ukrainian raions; even if they do not, it should suffice to use disambiguation pages along with the templates {{about}}, {{for}} etc. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The comparison to the departments of France is problematic, due to the fact that the departments were first established in 1790. With 200 years of historic coverage they are established to the point that any person familiar enough with French geography can easily decipher where a hypothetical settlement is. The same can't be said for the Ukrainian raions, which were merged and redrawn only 2 years ago. The merges obviously can create some confusion, but the raions also lack the coverage both on Wikipedia, and in general. All the Wikipedia articles regarding raions I've stumbled upon are barely 2-3 line stubs, meanwhile in the French example every department I checked has at least a somewhat meaningful amount written of its history, geography, demographics, politics, etc. Meanwhile, the relevant encyclopedic knowledge on Ukrainian subdivisions exists solely at the oblast level.

I would support a future move to disambiguation by raion should the Wikipedia articles regarding them have the coverage required to establish them as a prevalent division of Ukraine, but as of right now that is simply not the case. Hecseur (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@AlphaMikeOmega and Ymblanter: I would like to hear what you think about the arguements raised here. Right now there are a lot of Ukrainian places that are categorised by Raion, contrary to the current naming convention, and the counterarguement I made to AlphaMikeOmega's proposal last month. Some sort of consensus is needed to decide how we sort out these inconsistencies. What are your thoughts about this situation currently? Hecseur (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I still believe it is beneficial both raion and oblast (or only oblast if this makes the name unique) for the reasons I stated. Ymblanter (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I still believe that in the case that "[settlement], [oblast]" is ambiguous but "[settlement], [raion]" is unambiguous, "[settlement], [raion]" is preferable to "[settlement], [raion], [oblast]". However, I am willing to concede to the majority here and accept the longer format as part of the style guide till the coverage of raions is encyclopedic: I agree that this is a useful proxy for notability. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)