Jump to content

Talk:Kyiv Oblast

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggested move

[edit]

"Kyiv Oblast" is the official transliteration of a Ukrainian province name. I suggest a move per this policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Ukrainian_names. Here is Ukrainian President's webpage with the official translation of Ukraine's Constitution, which clearly mentions "Kyiv Oblast": http://www.president.gov.ua/en/content/p_10309_e.html. Please note that for an average English speaker the expression "Kiev Oblast" is basically unfamiliar. There is no substantial reason to modify "Kyiv Oblast" from its official transliteration.--Andrew Alexander 02:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The expression "Kyiv Oblast" is around 15 times more wide-spread on the Internet comparing to "Kiev Oblast": [1] (11,500 vs 718).--Andrew Alexander 03:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose. The page the user cites speaks only about the transliteration rules. That is we have to have a system that would choose between Mykolayiv, Mykolaiv or Mykolajiv. The primary rule, underlying the ones derived from it is here Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Quote from there reads: 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 and reference works. Based on this, it has been decided to use Kiev long time ago and until the usage in the media between Kiev and Kyiv at least levels out. Besides, Britannica has a separate article for the oblast itself, called Kiev oblast --Irpen 02:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • support Kyiv Oblast is neither of the following: "a person, country, town, movie or book". It's a name of the province in Ukraine. I don't understand why Wikipedia policies have to be ignored in this case.--Andrew Alexander 02:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Logically, the oblast is not just an "area around city of K__v". It is an officially established administrative entity of independent (and, legally, solely Ukrainophonic) state. Respectively, there are official acts regulating the existence of the oblast, namely the Constitution of Ukraine and corresponding laws of Ukraine. Undoubtfully, these documents are layed in Ukrainian and the oblast is called Kyivs'ka there. For a comparative example, St.Petersburg is a center of the Leningrad Oblast (not St.Petersburg oblast). Ukrained 17:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This proposal is made on the basis of a false statement: The official transliteration is either (full) Kyivs’ka oblast’, or (simplified) Kyivska oblast. —Michael Z. 2005-12-14 06:58 Z
  • Support. Oblast is not the city. And if you look at the search results on internet or in books, you see clearly that it always been Kyiv Oblast. Most of them who opposes this rename are russians, and that explains why they oppose. They just trying to rewrite the history and everything else as usual. Its just sad. 09:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

[edit]

Let's not overload voting section and place comments here. It seems to me from what I read in the readers' comments, we can rephrase the problem as follows. What is the source of the term, so to speak. Is it just an oblast around Київ or this is a unit on its own with its name totally independent of its capital. I can see good arguments for both versions (please do not repeat them, they are said already above). Please note, however, that if we proceed from the assumption that "Київська область" is a name on its own and should be treated independently of the city name Київ, we should base the article on the Ukrainian word Київська and not Київ. As such, the name "Kyiv Oblast" relates to neither IMO.

Now, what the English translation of the Ukrainian constitution is using is not a rule set in stone because it is just that, a translation. There is an absolute clarity only what the Ukrainian name is, which is "Київська область". That the best translation for encyclopedia is Kyivs'ka Oblast or Kyiv Oblast or Kiev Oblast does not follow from that directly. What matter for us is our naming conventions, their interpretation (since they are not crystal clear), and the so-called "common law", that is established traditions in WP and other encyclopedia. That Britannica call the subject's article "Kiev Oblast" should also be taken into account. --Irpen 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of making wild guesses of what the name should be, why not read the policy of Wikipedia? Here, it says For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc.. Is official translation of Ukraine's Constitution given on the President web site part of "Ukrainian National system"? Even if we take the first rule of that policy, the province still needs to be called "Kyiv Oblast" due its frequency on the Internet. The rule doesn't say that the name has to copy something from Britannica. It just says "conventional spelling". It is. 15 times over "Kiev Oblast".--Andrew Alexander 01:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained to you that the piece you quote is only for transliteration rules. The primary policy I quoted too. Kyiv Oblast makes less sence than Kyivs'ka Oblast. We do not have to translate the same way as the guy who translated the constitution. The original constitution is in Ukrainian and not in English. The legislature only voted for a Ukrainian text. I don't know what "official translation" means and even if there is one so called, it doesn't mean much. Official translation of Київ is Kyiv according to a Ukrainian government. However, the law applies only to the UA gov publications. English language not only isn't regulated by Ukrainian legislature, it is not regulated at all. At wiki, we only have conventions and our goal here is to decide which name better suites our convention. --Irpen 01:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misuse Wikipedia rules. The rule does not say anything about transliteration, you imply it to say it, but it doesn't. Another big misuse is to try to apply Wikipedia to set trends and conventions. Wikipedia has to reflect conventions. How many times have you used Google to pound in the point regarding Kiev? Now please, apply the same point. Oh yes, vain hopes...--Andrew Alexander 02:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While supporting the suggested move, I would say we should set conventions in the cases of countries poorly represented in English-speaking world. And the convention must be either Kyiv Oblast (for the reasons I stated above) or, what I discovered in the history of the oblast pages, Kyivska Oblast. Ukrained
Please also have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukrainian subdivisions and its talk page, where we worked out the conventions for naming Ukrainian oblasts in English. Note that the Ukrainian name is present in the lead paragraph "Київська область, Kyivs’ka oblast’ or Київщина, Kyivshchyna". —Michael Z. 2005-12-14 19:50 Z
Second that. When at its talk, make sure you rad the discussion starting from "How the city name Днiпропетровськ is spelled in English" and to the end of the page. Yes, make sure you read all of it to the end. --Irpen 20:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am kind of not surprized that Andrew Alexander assumes bad faith of anyone who disagrees with him. Go read the rules yourself first. As to google, I agree that it is an important factor. But it is not a one single factor to decide. If you remember what I said earlier, there are three factors to consider for a modern term : Google, other encyclopedias and Major papers. "Other encyclopedia" is shown above. I just checked major papers. Oblast is obscure for them (4 counts all with Kiev BTW) but they use "region" or "province" to denote not just a generic area, but exactly an oblast. Here we go: "Kyiv region" OR "Kyiv province" - zero counts, "Kiev Region" + "Kiev Province" - 11 counts. Not much but not zero.

One second. What does "Kiev Region" + "Kiev Province" have to do with the name of this article? This is silly. To support a Russian version of the name, you claim that that English versions are wide spread.;) --Andrew Alexander 22:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the list:

  • The Herald (Glasgow), March 18, 1996,
  • The Guardian (London), April 8, 1996
  • The Herald (Glasgow), April 24, 1996
  • The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia), April 24,
  • The Guardian (London), July 12, 1996
  • The Ottawa Citizen, June 15, 1998
  • The Jerusalem Post, September 30, 2001
  • The New York Times, December 1, 2004
  • The New York Times, November 26, 2004
  • Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 26, 2004
  • The Jerusalem Post, May 25, 2004

Add the four above with Oblast and you get 15 vs 0. That's for post-independence time (last ten years). The 20 years search gives 70+ vs 0 towards Kiev but the language may have evolved since the times of Gorby. So, it is less relevant.

But getting back to the main argument, we should just decide whether it is a single term or simply a derivation from the city name. In the former case, it should be Kyivs'ka Oblast, in the latter case, it should be Kiev Oblast.

It's great that you "got back to the main argument", because that's the only argument here. Call this province whatever Ukrainian official name that makes sense, use the President's translation of the Constitution even.--Andrew Alexander 22:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we pretty much heared each other. Neither you nor I can say anything new. If it gets voted to the name you propose, I will live with it just fine. I think I am OK with Kyiv much more than you are with Kiev but I will leave the reasons why I think so out of this page. --Irpen 03:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So exactly did you hear anyone if you continue ignoring this encyclopedia's policies? Should the Ukrainian naming policy get voted away by a bunch of Russian editors each time someone wants to apply that policy?--Andrew Alexander 22:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Could you also do a similar check for "Kyivs(')ka" and "Kievskaya"? I'm kind of curious if these are used in English at all.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ezhiki, I will check again, but if my memory serves me well, I did check that yesterday and both returned zero counts. But I will post here once I get to rechecking this. --Irpen 19:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now, please check the name of this article. Does this return anything?--Andrew Alexander 22:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, neither "Kiev Oblast" nor "Kyiv Oblast" returned any hits at all. For the totally separate reasons we ended up using "Oblast" in article names, although some argued that articles should be called "XXX Region" or "XXX Province". If we ended up with whatever of the latter versions, we would have gotten the exact hits in Lexus Nexus with "Kiev". Since "Oblast" is kind of unique and only ised in Wikipedia and Britannica among the ref sources, we cannot find an exact match in the media.
However, this unit (oblast/province/region) is overwhelmingly called "Kiev XXX" by the media. So it is called by EB. We may change the WP convention and rename all oblasts to "regions". It would still be "Kiev Region" as per the media usage. Another way, is to get rid of sticking with nouns in all oblasts. Then it would be Kyivska Oblast. But in none of this cases the name you suggest (Kyiv Oblast) makes any sense. --Irpen 22:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, a Ukrainian name for a Ukrainian province doesn't make any sense. A Russian name, however small number of hits obtained, makes a huge amount of sense. That is, not. Pick whatever name you like, but it has to mean "oblast", not just some vicinity of Kyiv. And you need to pick the most wide spread name, and also accepted by the Ukrainian government. Because that's what "Ukrainian National system" would generally mean. This isn't "Russian editors vote away a Ukrainian name", this is "Wikipedia has to enforce its own rules". This simply confirms that violating a policy means nothing around here.--Andrew Alexander 23:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In the article I quoted above "Kiev Region" or "Kiev Province" means not some vicinity of Kiev but exactly "Kyivska Oblast". That we chose to use "Oblast" instead of "region" or "province" for article names was the result of an unrelated discussion. We can resume that discussion and decide to rename all articles to "provinces".
  2. I didn't say Ukrainian name makes no sense. I said Kyiv Oblast makes none. Kyivska Oblast would make sense IMO, which is a perfectly Ukrainian name, but would require us to reconsider the convention and rename all articles by applying a different logic to naming. Maybe it is worthy. It was discussed and decided to stick to the noun forms.
  3. "Accepted by UA government" is not an argument. Ukrainian government has no authority over the general usage in the English language. It does have an authority over how the governmental organizations must write. As such, it may mandate the usage of the State sponsored Holos Ukrayiny, but not in the international English language media or the non-Ukrainian ref sources.
  4. Ukrainian National System applies for transliteration.
  5. I repeatedly told you that your interpretation of "Wikipedia's own rules" is flawed. If others see that my interpretation is flawed and your is right, we will rename the article.
  6. The rest of your message is the rant that does not warrant any response. --Irpen 23:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a set of arbitrary assumtions in the rant above. Starting from calling "oblast" a "region" and ending with calling a "Ukrainian National system" a tranliteration tool. The latter is especially funny when reading the next sentence in the same policy. And yes, a Russian name is still "above all". What a joke.--Andrew Alexander 00:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Alexander, I thought you were discussing this seriously. Had I realized that this was simply trolling, I would not have wasted my time as Do not feed the trolls is the golden rule that I learned around here. In any case, let me repeat that people here have mostly heard each other at this and other article talks. If I failed to convince you, I gues I will live with it. --Irpen 00:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing, not only do you push Russian names disregarding rules and conventions of Wikipedia, you also manage to accuse people not agreeing with you of trolling.--Andrew Alexander 02:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this slowly and try to understand. Kiev Oblast is not the Russian name which is "Киевская область" and the closest to this in English is "Kievskaya Oblast". On the other hand Kyiv Oblast is not the Ukrainian name, and the closest name to the Ukrainian one is Kyivs'ka Oblast, I do not object to the latter, provided that we decide, after a discussion, that names of all oblasts should be changed in WP, such as "L'vivska Oblast" instead of current Lviv Oblast, "Zhytomyrs'ka Oblsat" instead of current Zhytomyr Oblast, etc. "Kyiv Oblast" you propose is neither a Ukrainian name, nor an appropriate English name. If Kyiv/Kiev usage in English changes with time sufficiently to move the Kiev article, we would use "Kyiv Oblast" too provided that we don't change our mind regarding both a noun form and a rare in English "Oblast" word. Otherwise, it would be "Kyivska Oblast" or "Kyiv Province" or "Kyiv Region" or a combination thereof that would suite the evolved convention at some future point. It is pointless for us to keep saying each other again "read the conventions", we have both read them already. Other people are also, hopefully, reading the convention and see this discussion. If this vote gets flooded by newbies recruited from elsewhere, that would be a different story, of course, but I don't want even to talk about this for now.

As for "accusing you in trolling", I strongly feel so and I said so. You cannot deny that I tried to talk to you here patiently for a long enough time despite all the past contradictions. If you bring in some new points, I will respond. If you keep going in circles, I will not be repeating what I said for a teenth time. I let other editors here judge, whether I was right and fare. --Irpen 04:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, the oblast is not just an "area around city of K__v". It is an officially established administrative entity of independent (and, legally, solely Ukrainophonic) state. Respectively, there are official acts regulating the existence of the oblast, namely the Constitution of Ukraine and corresponding laws of Ukraine. Undoubtfully, these documents are layed in Ukrainian and the oblast is called Kyivs'ka there. For a comparative example, St.Petersburg is a center of the Leningrad Oblast (not St.Petersburg oblast). Ukrained 17:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • St. Petersburg is not a correct example. St. Petersburg and Leningradskaya have different roots, while Kyiv and Kyivska do not. This is a matter of common English spelling and consistency, not of a new name. Neither Kiev nor its oblast were renamed.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Practically, they could be renamed. I'm not familiar with the exact texts of Soviet and Ukrainian SSR Constitutions. May be they (or other laws) included the phrase Kievskaya oblast. But since the adoption of the 1990 constitutional ammendments, and later the 1996 Constitution, the predecessing legislature lost its force. So the only legitimate name for the oblast, according to the Art. 133 of Constitution, is Київська область - no matter how the city is named. Ukrained 19:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This misses the point. There is no question that Київська область is the correct Ukrainian name and a name of the article in ua-Wiki. The question is only the name for the article in the English L encyclopedia. Britannica that AndriyK loves to quote has a separate article for this Oblast as I pointed above. The name of the EB article is "Kiev Oblast". --Irpen 20:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonsense to have Kiev and Kyiv Oblast simultaneously. --Ghirlandajo 17:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "Kiev" part is common to both the city and the oblast? - don't get your point. It is common in Ukrainian, and it is Kyiv. In English WP, we should only consider that Kiev is a large city with its own global image, while oblast is purely the administrative unit of Ukraine, exclusively named by Ukrainian government.Ukrained
If I may so remind you, Ukrainian government does not have any authority over what name should be used in English. If English speakers still use "Kiev" and/or "Kiev Oblast", that's an unfortunate fact for Ukrainians, but a fact nevertheless.mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See statistic above provided by Andrew Alexander :) Ukrained 21:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I missed that. Still, I doubt very much that an average reader knows what an "oblast" is, let alone the difference between "Kyiv oblast" and "Kiev oblast". Such a reader will at least recognize the "Kiev" portion in "Kiev oblast". "Kyiv oblast"—that contraction is likely just to be ignored. This is strictly my personal opinion, of course, yet one that prevents me from changing my vote based on the google results (which I normally strongly consider) alone.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
nobody here is trying to rename Volyn Oblast to Lutsk Oblast - lucky we are... Ukrained
This sarcasm is misplaced. It was said to illustrate the difference and not to show some patronizing or mentoring attitude. --Irpen 20:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote this move is very complicated, it can be done since Wiki is not consistent, but it better be resolved on naming conventions, but I would propose adding Kyiv oblast into the lead, since it is not Ukrainian but English from Ukrainian and the formal name of the city–Gnomz007(?) 18:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Irpen 18:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is made on the basis of a false statement: The official transliteration is either (full) Kyivs’ka oblast’, or (simplified) Kyivska oblast. —Michael Z. 2005-12-14 06:58 Z

Is Ukrainian Consitution posted on the Ukrainian President web site a false statement too?--Andrew Alexander 22:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Ukrainian Constitution does not state that Kyiv Oblast is a transliteration of "Київська область;" it isn't a transliteration of anything. The Constitution's translators formulated the English name "Kyiv Oblast," following the same convention that they use for the English name of the city Kyiv. Wikipedia uses a different naming convention.
If you're going to get picky and technical about these things, then you should get it right, or you'll simply be accused of pursuing your political agenda rather than trying to improve Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 2005-12-15 17:25 Z
Michael, the translators chose the compromise of the most common and precise name for that Ukrainian province. After that the name has gained an official status since the translation is now authorized by the Ukrainian President office. It's fine to fight someone's "political agenda" as long as that fight is within the rules of Wikipedia. In the case the rules are ignored, the fight looses its validity. The Wikipedia rule states clearly to use Ukrainian national standards for geographical names. In this case such name also beats its Russian equivalent 15 to 1 in Google search results.--Andrew Alexander 20:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto.!I told you the same almost verbatim here. See the discussion below. And I think "would simply be accused" is an understatement, but maybe that's just me. --Irpen 17:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result

[edit]

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 17:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kotsiubynske

[edit]

Answering my own question: the town of Kotsiubynske (Ukrainian: Коцюбинське, historically Bilychi village) is indeed an exclave of Kiev Oblast in Kiev city. It has been pretty hard to investigate online :( and I found only this supposedly broken link to support the info. Looks like UA govt is hiding this silly geo-bureaucratic fact as much as possible :))). Ukrained 22:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City-states ???

[edit]

OK guys, who's adding fantasies about Kyiv and Sevastopol as city-states? These are municipalities of the unitary centralized state emerged from totalitarian rule only 15 years ago! What are you talking about :))? They remain very dependent from the central government, at least by formal means. Please discuss such bold assumptions at talks first.AlexPU

File:Map of Kyivska Oblast.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Map of Kyivska Oblast.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New map

[edit]

... may be produced by retouching this nice image. Ukrained2012 (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev or Kyiv

[edit]

Which is it? The page title uses Kiev, most of the text uses Kyiv (including for the name of the city). I don't care which is used, just pick one. What I do care about is the fact that the city is called Kiev in English, whatever the decision about the name of the oblast and the name of this page, any use of the city name alone should be Kiev. --Khajidha (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be Kiev regardless. If most of the article refers to the city as Kyiv then it should be reverted back because that was a unilateral change on someone's part that was taken without any prior discussion. Consensus has established that Kiev is the proper name that we should use on Wikipedia, and in 95% of the articles, it is. § DDima 15:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got everything. I couldn't just use a search and replace, as some uses of Kyiv are legitimate: quotations, source names, discussion of the transliteration. The previous change to Kyiv had made total nonsense of a sentence discussing the two different names. --Khajidha (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. § DDima 17:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename page to Kyiv Oblast

[edit]

In Wikipedia we should use official names of regions and cities therefore consider it appropriate to rename a page on the official name specified in the official translation of the Constitution of Ukraine, which is used in all documents and the names of institutions (Kyiv Oblast).

Official translation the Constitution of Ukraine: www.kmu.gov.ua/document/110977042/Constitution_eng.doc

Use header Kiev Oblast is not approved in the official documents of the country, and was used in the Soviet Union. I believe that the use of the name Kiev Oblast possible only as an additional and historic, but not official. Tunyk (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply] 


як виправити назву статті? не "Kiev oblast" (це з російської, а не з української), а Kyiv oblast' - Олена Лісовська
Per WP:COMMONNAME, no. "Kiev" is the common name in English. See Talk:Kiev/naming. --Taivo (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kiev Oblast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kiev Oblast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv Oblast

[edit]

Hi, Place Clichy. The oblast doesn't have a name separate from the city. It’s name Київська область, Kyivska oblast, is formed as an adjective based on the city’s name, literally “Kyivan oblast,” or “oblast of Kyiv.” (much like fr:oblast de Kiev: “l’oblast de Kiev or oblast de Kyïv”.) Starting another RM is silly, so please just look at the facts and reconsider. At least don’t edit-war and push calling the city “Kiev (Kyiv)” everywhere, because that battle is lost. Thanks. —Michael Z. 15:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just believe at first sight that "Kiev Oblast" is a lot more frequent that "Kyiv Oblast" in the English language. What matters here is the name used in English, not in Ukrainian. It is not uncommon to have the name of the oblast not exactly following the name of its center, see for instance how Leningrad Oblast is called despite the head city being renamed Saint Petersburg many years ago. I know this town called Koropi in Greece whose municipality is called Kropia (litt. Dimos Kropias, Deme of Kropia) despite the name of the town. Starting a RM can never be "silly", especially seeing the number of RMs started for the single Kiev/Kyiv article over the years. The latest RM that resulted in renaming the article about the city to Kyiv is far, far, very far from showing a clear and over-reaching consensus. Clearly, it does not mean that any and every occurrence of the word "Kiev" on the English Wikipedia should be replaced by Kyiv, especially when a historical or other specific term has a long-standing favour in English-language publications. E.g. certainly the name of the Kiev Governorate or the Kiev Viceroyalty (18th and 19th century entities) did not suddenly change overnight, and renaming them to use Kyiv would be a complete anachronism. As the consensus is weak and was fought for years about the name of the city, and per the examples above, imho it does not extends to other entities.
In the spirit of WP:BRD, you are kindly invited to open a discussion on the subject of the name of the oblast in the English language. Place Clichy (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll: how to move Kiev Oblast → Kyiv Oblast

[edit]
The opposition to the move remains unmoved, a move request will follow

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is not a formal move request. This is a straw poll to gauge the need for a move request. Please don’t bother commenting, but just vote Speedy or Request, or whatever. I will close it when I feel like it, hopefully soon. I will request participation at talk:Kyiv, WP:WikiProject Ukraine. —Michael Z. 16:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:RM#CM says the following:
The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:
  • there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
  • someone could reasonably disagree with the move.
It's a no-brainer here for Kiev Oblast: both are checked. You need the RM discussion, it's not a matter of straw poll. Place Clichy (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Place Clichy, many will argue that this has just been settled over a massive three-month debate (you seem to have missed the fun on that one), and will be annoyed with a new RM. But you are technically right. If you’re sure you won’t change your mind, I will just cut this poll and call an RM so we can get on with it. —Michael Z. 19:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mzajac is correct. Usually when a city/state name change happens on Wikipedia, all modern uses of the name on Wikipedia also change unless the place-name involved can be shown to be the current modern spelling. This happened a couple years ago with Burma moving to Myanmar. Historical items like so-and-so the king of Burma we did not change to so-and-so the king of Myanmar. But if Ukraine today uses Kyiv Oblast as the spelling of the administrative center, it will likely be an absolute snowball closing of the RM because the debate just happened at talk:kiev. It's your call but it seems there are better uses for a formal RM. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since the responses below for Speedy move include both supporters and opponents of the original move of Kiev to Kyiv. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A good point is made here in writing all modern usages. Precisely, not all proper names of specific entities should automatically renamed with the new name if they follow specific historiography conventions, such as Kiev Voivodeship or Kiev Governorate which were replaced in the text of this article in this edit]. It would be just like renaming the Bombay Presidency with the name of Mumbai. About Kiev Oblast, my first belief is that it refers to the Soviet subdivision just as the modern Ukrainian one. Place Clichy (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There’s nothing to do with the Soviets. It has remained “Kievan oblast” in Russian and “Kyivan oblast” in Ukrainian since 1932. What has changed is the English language’s respect for Ukrainians’ self-determination in the form of naming their own places. If you can’t point out a single reliable source that intentionally uses Kyiv (city) but Kiev oblast, then there seems to me to be no real point in going through the motions of an RM. But I will start one shortly anyway to resolve this properly. —Michael Z. 13:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 19 September 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved early per WP:SNOW and consensus garnered below. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 12:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev Oblast → Kyiv Oblast – The article Kiev has now been moved to Kyiv, and the rationale for approving that move at talk:Kyiv#Requested move 28 August 2020 applies here as well, referring to WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:PLACE, WP:MODERNPLACENAME, and WP:WIAN. Additionally, since no competently written source would choose to present a factual statement like “Kiev Oblast is named after its main city Kyiv,” WP:CONSISTENT and WP:TITLECON should be considered relevant and important.  —Michael Z. 16:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cherkasy Oblast which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyiv_Oblast&oldid=1244479427"