Wikipedia

Talk:Odesa/Archive 2

< Talk:Odesa
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Mzajac in topic This article is in the news
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Requested move 24 February 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago108 comments48 people in discussion
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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Votes here are fairly evenly split after a week and a half of listing, and the evidence from reliable sources is fairly evenly split too, with it being demonstrated that Odessa is still extensively used by many sources even since the start of the war while others use Odesa. As such, the page remains where it is for now, and Golden's suggestion that we "wait a few more months and then open a new Requested Move" seems a sensible one. Hopefully by that time a clearer picture of recent trends will have emerged, and a proper WP:NAMECHANGES assessment can be made.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

– Per WP:MODERNPLACENAME and WP:NPOVTITLE. Please see additional reasons for renaming to Odesa at Talk:Kyiv and this talk page. English language news sources use the Odesa spelling in line with their change from Kiev to Kyiv. For example, see AP News, CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post, The Guardian, BBC, Financial Times, Reuters, CBC, Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. wbm1058 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment. The RM at Talk:Odessa Oblast was submitted within a minute of this request, with idential |reason= given. I am consolidating the discussion about both to this page as I see no plausible scenario for moving one of these without concurrently moving the other. – wbm1058 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment from nominator - I started the page move request based on the Ukrainian government's (and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) requests to have Ukrainian cities renamed to the romanizations of their Ukrainian spelling (see KyivNotKiev and CorrectUA). Odesa is one of the cities specifically mentioned along with Kyiv, and the spelling Odessa is stated as being the archaic, Soviet-era spelling of the city. I realize that it may be too soon to request a page move as most reliable English sources have not settled on a spelling (the sources listed in my initial request are only articles that use the Odesa spelling), and currently the most common name may still be the original spelling Odessa. English news sources may also not necessarily have a standard style guide regarding the spelling of Odesa while they do have one for Kyiv. However, I still felt there was merit in proposing a page move based on current news articles already beginning to use the Odesa spelling and most current maps and geographical sources which do use the Odesa spelling. Books on the subject will most likely use the older Odessa spelling as it is most likely too soon to see if reliable book sources are using the Odesa spelling, unless they were published in the past 5-10 years. The new article name currently does not pass WP:COMMONNAME or WP:RECENTISM (although WP:MODERNPLACENAME recommends the most recent, modern version of the name, which would apply in this case if using the arguments made by the Ukrainian government), so I am fine with the page move being closed if there are no additional comments. Closing remarks: I do agree that Odessa is the better spelling for the city based on the original Greek city name Odessos, but I respect the Ukrainian government's request (and the Ukrainian people's) to use the Odesa spelling in English, just like with Kyiv and that is what I will use. I know that the article title for this city on the English wiki is based on the most recent and common name in English, so the fact that it is romanized from Ukrainian as Odesa may not be an appropriate reason to use the Odesa spelling. I also acknowledge the fact that currently a large plurality of people in Odesa are Russian speakers, and they have a right to use the original Odessa spelling if that is what they choose. We will see in the next 10-20 years if Odessa will remain the common name in English (most likely outcome) or if it will change to Odesa (less likely outcome), and this article can be moved if needed at that time. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Strong oppose, too soon. Even if some media started to call the city Odesa today, it is not yet the indication that this is the most common name in English. Right now the usage is chaotic, and does not prove anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
can someone provide a proof of chaotic usage? are there any mentions that use "Odessa" spelling? Internetyev (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Sure--Ymblanter (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Note that the topic starter is canvassing people who should be clearly favorable to the move arguments: [1]--Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Note that I requested comments from users that started the discussions for renaming the article in the sections above. Since you already replied, there was no reason to notify you as well. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Note to closer This is clear WP:CANVASSING: of the above editors who were engaged in the previous discussion, OjdvQ9fNJWl only notified User:Blomsterhagens (see here) and User:Mzajac (see here), these two users were in favor of the move. OjdvQ9fNJWl did not notify the other two users in that discussion, User:Mellk and User:Ymblanter (who were opposed to the move), hence this is textbook canvassing. Eccekevin (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Note to closer Accusations of canvassing is disruptive to the topic being discussed in this requested move. I've notified all users who previously participated in the discussion regardless if they have seen this or not, and only those editors that participated in previous talk sections about renaming. I don't believe this is considered canvassing considering that WP:CANVAS states that " it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus," and that it is acceptable to "notify users editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I personally don't care how the article is named on the English Wikipedia, but if it's "Odessa" in the Oxford's Lexico, Collins Dictionary, Franklin Meriam-Webster Dictionary and other reputable dictionaries, then it should probably remain "Odessa" (what most dictionaries tell about "Odesa" is that it's a Ukrainian variant of the name, i.e. a transliteration of the Ukrainian name "Одеса"). Also, it's not true that media have switched over to "Odesa" and those listed above seem to be cherry-picked because the same media still use "Odessa" in their recent news reports (see Reuters, CNN, CBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, BBC etc.). As for the origins of the name "Odessa" in the English language, even if it was widely accepted as a transliteration of the Russian name "Одесса" long time ago, there's nothing problematic considering that Russian speakers form a vast majority in the city. Importantly, the Russian language doesn't belong exclusively to Russia because it has many native speakers outside of its current borders, and this distinction is clearly noted in the language through the adjectives "русский" (="Russian") and "российский" (= "of Russia"). I have many Ukrainian friends who hold a grudge against Russia, but they still use Russian as their primary language. Finally, the timing of this nomination is probably tied with Russia's invasion of Ukraine in the attempt to get increased support from people sympathising with the Ukrainian people, so that's why it was necessary to tell something more about the Russian language as opposed to Russia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. With what's going on at the moment, sources are mixed. I don't believe media have settled on one spelling or the other, so the current page title should remain intact. O.N.R. (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. During the Soviet era, Ukrainian geographical names had been transliterated into English via those names' Russian forms, but since Ukraine has been an independent country for over three decades, Ukrainian names should be transliterated into English via their Ukrainian forms. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • That’s not true. Mark Twain in his travel book The Innocents Abroad, first published in 1869, uses the name “Odessa”. That was clearly the common name of the city in the pre-Soviet era. Also, the English dictionaries have still not adopted “Odesa” as a more preferable name than “Odessa” (note that “Kyiv” and “Beijing” have replaced “Kiev” and “Peking” in the dictionaries), so it’s not our business to discuss how names should be transliterated into English when linguists have already taken care about them.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
A wider historical view can be indeed taken and the sentence can be slightly enhanced to state, "During the Tsarist and Soviet eras...", but the basic argument remains the same and the decision remains with consensus. The move from Kiev to Kyiv was likely influenced by ongoing events and the same may turn out to be true here. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
A change may, or may not, happen. "Odesa" has a particularly unlettered appearance, doing violence to the symmetry of its origin, Ὀδησσός, Odessos, and, even moreso, when placed into the feminine form. And so follows the "Odessa" name adoption by a number of cities. That the the asymmetric form will become the English standard is not a given. Tachypaidia (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
There are many places in the English-speaking world founded by emigrants from the city and named "Odessa" after it (see Odessa (disambiguation)), so it's very unwise to confuse people just because someone thinks the English language should be revisited because of a name recently popularised and not widely accepted by specialists in the English language.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Geographical names in the English-speaking New World date from the arrival of settlers in the 18th and 19th century. Some of those names are now historically outdated, but continue to exist as reminders of the time of their founding — Kief, North Dakota; Konigsberg, California; Breslau, Ontario; Cracow, Queensland; Cracow, Michigan; Calcutta, Indiana; Calcutta, Ohio or Calcutta, West Virginia. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The entire basis of your argument for "support" is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:MODERNPLACENAME, conducting an elementary reading of the actual text of the guideline makes this apparent. The name of Odessa has not changed, the discrepancy here is merely that of spelling/pronunciation based on language and common usage, with WP:COMMONNAME clearly applying here as "Odessa" is used far more commonly than "Odesa".BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I think it's you that hasn't read WP:MPN properly. Spelling is explicitly included - In some cases it is not the local name but the spelling of the name in English that has changed over time. For example, Nanjing, as the contemporary pinyin spelling, is used for the name of the article rather than Nanking. Turnagra (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99, I’ll refer you to a relevant precedent: the detailed decision, citing WP:MODERNPLACENAME, on the move of Kyiv, another city whose name has not changed and has two English WP:COMMONNAMEs (spelling variants): Talk:Kyiv/Archive 7#Requested move 28 August 2020. —Michael Z. 18:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Note to closer A WP:CANVASSING incident occurred involving this user. Eccekevin (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is on my watchlist.Please tag people when you try to discredit their opinion instead of just writing “this user.” —Michael Z. 03:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I am not trying to discredit anyone, I am just alerting the closer of WP:CANVASSING (which was not done by you, but the user who canvessed you). Eccekevin (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Eccekevin, sorry, I only meant to suggest that the closer should not weight my input by the presumption of unfairness. —Michael Z. 14:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
FYI, WP:CANVAS states that " it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus," and that it is acceptable to "notify users editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)," and that is what I did since User:Mzajac previously participated in a discussion about renaming the article in the previous sections. I don't believe my notifications are considered canvassing considering I have notified all users who participated in the previous renaming discussion. Please stop with the canvassing warnings as that is also considered disruptive. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
This makes no sense. If you say that Odessa currently is more used, then by WP:COMMONNAME that's what should be used. And if you believe that eventually Odesa will be more common, that doesn't affect Wikipedia because Wikipedia does not predict the future or speculate (see WP:CRYSTALBALL). We don't deal in "eventually". Eccekevin (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I just linked articles I saw at the time, no cherry picking, while yours clearly have been to make a POINT. Of course, I had the COMMONNAME argument as my third point because I find it the weakest overall, either direction. If "Odesa" is the official anglicisation, it is plain insulting to use an old holdout spelling, no matter how widely used in media it is. But as someone's research in the section above shows, over the years, "Odesa" has been increasingly used and recently overtook "Odessa" across all sources, anyway. If a company changes its name, which is a fair comparison to the world being told they are spelling something wrong, then you will find more sources with the old name, but still move the article to the new name straight away because that is what it is named. Kingsif (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
You might want to read WP:POINT before you reference it. It is not "disruptive" to point out that I can easily find exactly the same sources referenced in the request using the current name and not the proposed name. That means we cannot just use a few news sources to determine what the common name of the article is. "Odesa" might be the WP:OFFICIALNAME, but that is irrelevant, as we do not blindly use whatever the official name of anything is, regardless of if someone finds it "insulting" or not. You might find it insulting, but if you cannot prove that the WP:COMMONNAME of the article has changed: tough. Kyiv was changed not because people found the use of "Kiev" insulting but because it could be actually proved that "Kyiv" is now the common name. That is the same process we use here and up to this point it has not been proved that "Odesa" is the common name. As I said, the only evidence that has been provided is a few news articles which are inconsistent in their use and it can be easily shown that a wide varriety of news sources are using "Odessa". I read the conversation above this request and whomever "someone" is hasn't shown that the name has changed as no one in that conversation had done so. --Spekkios (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
You might want to read the note there, which as I recall says that POINTy behavior isn't limited to disruptive edits. Now, we do not blindly use whatever the official name of anything is [...] if you cannot prove that the WP:COMMONNAME of the article has changed: tough - nonsense. Well, the user in the thread above in question is Mzajac, who compiled Google data (recommended for RMs), as well as pointing to the WP:MODERNPLACENAME, which says For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one... In some cases it is not the local name but the spelling of the name in English that has changed over time. For example, Nanjing, as the contemporary pinyin spelling, is used for the name of the article rather than Nanking. - literally instructing to use the most up-to-date local (i.e. Ukrainian) name and English spelling of such, even if there are masses of sources still using older ones. And for that last reason and just using Wikipedia, I very much dispute that COMMONNAME is always superior to an official name (your use of "anything" suggest you believe nothing has its article given an official over common name); do you call a TV a "TV"? Or a "television set"? Because our article is television set. Just the first object I looked at above my laptop screen. Give it up with claiming Wikipedia always uses COMMONNAME. Kingsif (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
You're going to have to explain how exactly WP:POINTy applies to my original comment, as now you are telling me to read WP:NOTPOINTy. Are you saying that my comment is WP:NOTPOINTy? Then why bring up WP:POINTy in the first place if it's WP:NOTPOINTy?
Anyway, WP:MODERNPLACENAME would apply if it can be shown the modern name is "Odesa". That has not happened here. It is quite clear that "Odessa" is still in strong use throughout English-speaking media. It also doesn't tell us to use the Ukrainian name as it specifically tells us to use the modern established English name.
As for the results by Mzajac I repeat what I said before: they have not shown that the name has changed. Their results are quite flawed, for example:
  • Not filtering out non-English language results in Google scholar. There are 4,400 results for "Odesa" but 10,800 for "Odessa" since 2020.
  • Google news search shows 51,000 results for "Odesa" but 142,000 for "Odessa".
  • I don't know how they are counting book results. In 2016 there were about 4000 results for "Odesa" and 33,000 for "Odessa". Similar results for the same search but from 2020 to today.
Finally, I thought it was quite obvious that I was talking about geographic terms such as countries or cities. These almost always use the common name of the place and not official. TV is an acronym for television and is covered by WP:NCA. There has to be an extremely good reason why we should not use the common name and so far all that has been presented is a few news articles that I have already easily shown to be inconsistent. --Spekkios (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
User:Spekkios please tag someone when you explicitly criticize their statements, in case your criticism is less than authoritative. Please read WP:SET: I don’t believe anything there implies that a search test is “flawed” if it doesn’t employ “filtering” the way you do. It does suggest that Google’s estimate of number of results is often pure bunk. You have to go to the last page of results, and sometimes it shows that the actual number is vastly different, other times it is clearly still bunk. And it’s helpful to link the last page. For example, your last two searches (2020 to today) yield
How do you accomplish “filtering out non-English language results in Google scholar”? I can’t find any language filter or advanced search for Scholar.
And I don’t know how you determined Google News results total, because it doesn’t show them for me, and the only way I can make comparisons is to choose a short time frame and count every one while scrolling to the bottom of the endless page, where it loads up to 100. For example, when I search in the last hour, I get Odesa 9,[5] Odessa 16, [6]but it changes every time I reload the search.
Anyway, my point isn’t that Odesa is clearly the most common name, but that there are two commonly used names, and we should interpret the results much the same way we did in the clear and unchallenged consensus decision on Kyiv. —Michael Z. 16:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the inaccuracies in the number of results Google returns: I was unaware that it could be vastly inaccurate. The filtering was intended to filter results to Ukraine only. Google scholar has a setting so it can only return results from a certain language (in the left hand drop-down box). I'm not sure what the difference is between a Google search for news and a search using Google News but it again may produce different results. I can get 41 vs 208 when seraching in the last 24 hours. --Spekkios (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Per norm Toran107 (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose; a google news search for results in the past month suggests a slight preference for "Odessa". This is likely to change, as news organizations react to the invasion by switching which form they use, but that hasn't happened yet, and we should wait a few months to confirm that the change is not temporary before moving the article. BilledMammal (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Except Wikipedia doesn't change things on the basis of "might as well." It changed Kiev to Kyiv because the vast majority of English sources are using Kyiv in print and in modern conversations. With Odessa it's the opposite with Odessa being more popular. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
You think I'm stupid, don't you? Great Mercian (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
No, not at all. I took it exactly as you posted. If you meant otherwise I missed it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Bangalore is not at Bengaluru despite Kolkata, Mumbai, etc. --Spekkios (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
relying primarily on recent sources WP:RECENTISM, and against policy. Eccekevin (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
That is WP:RECENTISM, which is against policy. Eccekevin (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:RECENTISM doesn't apply here at all. Odesa has been the Ukrainian spelling for a long time unless they changed the language recently and "Odesa" is the name used by recently published, reliable, English language media. That is more than enough to qualify for WP:COMMONNAME. Desertambition (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The Ukrainian spelling doesn't matter at all; what matters is the English spelling. And as has been continuously shown, English language media has been at best ambiguous in the spelling used. --Spekkios (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Searching Odessa on google news gives more recent results about Odessa, Texas than Ukraine. Whereas searching Odesa has much more results about Odesa, Ukraine. Seems pretty clear that Odesa is the WP:COMMONNAME. Desertambition (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you filter out the Texas results then and search for Ukraine specifically? --Spekkios (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
There is no reason to filter out Texas results. If we just filter out the results we don't want then of course the results look more favorable. Fact is that more and more news agencies are using "Odesa" in recent reporting. That meets WP:COMMONNAME requirements. Desertambition (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Of course we need to filter out results we don't want. Why are the results for Texas relevant when we are trying to find the common name for a Ukrainian city? --Spekkios (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
If that were true, we would have "Beograd" instead of "Belgrade" and "Moskva" instead of "Moscow".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Actually, significant coverage in English language media does meet WP:COMMONNAME requirements. Belgrade and Moscow are not accurate comparisons. Desertambition (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
@Desertambition: Why are they not accurate comparisons?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The Moscow/Moskva, Belgrade/Beograd, Warsaw/Warszawa, Prague/Praha, Munich/München arguments were all on display during the Kyiv/Kiev discussions and were dismissed as inapplicable simply because those are all stable English-language exonyms that are used without a challenge by the countries in question when those countries issue English-language texts.
On the other hand, city names such as Kiev/Kyiv, Odessa/Odesa, Peking/Beijing, Calcutta/Kolkata or Bombay/Mumbai are challenged by the involved countries because of historical baggage and are no longer stable English-language exonyms, with English-language media using the revised exonyms, which is not the case with Moskva or Beograd. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
What the involved countries do is completely irrelevant because they're not official regulators of the English language. The name "Odessa" was widely used in the English language long before the modern Russian and Ukrainian literary languages were codified. Moreover, it's evident that the English dictionaries haven't adopted "Odesa" as the main name of the city, but they did it with "Kyiv", so it's clear that this is a case much closer to that of "Belgrade" or "Moscow". I can live with any decision at the end but it's utterly ridiculous to mutilate the language by dumping centuries-old literature and dismissing current dictionaries just because there's a recent tendency in the media to use "Odesa" more often. At the very least, give the linguists writing dictionaries a say.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
If we are expected to agree that "it's utterly ridiculous to mutilate the language by dumping centuries-old literature" in choosing "Odesa" over "Odessa", then we would have to accept that we acted with equal ridiculousness in dumping Peking for Beijing, Bombay for Mumbai, Calcutta for Kolkata and Kiev for Kyiv. Media outlets follow manuals of style, all of which indicate Belgrade and Moscow, not Beograd and Moskva. Thus, when we see reliable sources following revised manuals that indicate "Odesa" rather than "Odessa", we know that time has come to follow suit. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
That's again not true. Many reputable English dictionaries have adopted "Beijing" (see Oxford's Lexico, Collins Dictionary, Meriam-Webster Dictionary), "Mumbai" (see Oxford's Lexico, Collins Dictionary, Meriam-Webster Dictionary), "Kolkata" (see Oxford's Lexico, Collins Dictionary) and "Kyiv" (see Oxford's Lexico, Collins Dictionary, Meriam-Webster Dictionary) as primary names, whereas none have done so for "Odesa" (see Oxford's Lexico, Collins Dictionary, Franklin Meriam-Webster Dictionary and note that Collins Dictionary doesn't even mention the existence of "Odesa" as an alternative name). You're welcome to argue about "Odesa" at any time once you discover that specialists in the English language, reputable dictionaries or high-ranked publishers have switched over to that name. But arguing that we should change the name because some media, whose content isn't even proofread, decided to use it alongside "Odessa" in the absence of even slightest approval by the scientific community is nothing other than a clear mutilation of the language.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
"Clear mutilation of the language" by Financial Times or NPR "whose content isn't even proofread"? When events move at an accelerated pace, orthography used by reliable sources is likewise revised. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
That’s nice. Please ping me when it’s officially revised by linguists in reputable dictionaries or handbooks of orthography and I’ll vote to support the change. Until then, it’s too soon and a crystal-ball territory.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
No, it is not even close. Eccekevin (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
That represents all of the things listed in Odessa (disambiguation). Search Google Books with a real narrowed search, page to the end and count the actual results, and tell me how close it is (2020 to present): Odesa 40, Odessa 25. —Michael Z. 20:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Only including 2020-present is WP:RECENTISM. But also, searching for "Odesa" (even since 2020) literally asks you did you mean "Odessa" Ukraine -Wikipedia. JSTOR (which is modre indicative of Academia than GoogleBooks) has 10 times more results for Odessa Ukraine than Odesa Ukraine. Even just after 2020, it's 49 results for Odessa and 15 for Odesa, so even in the past two years there is the academic sources use Odessa more. Eccekevin (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per nom--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'm not sure the correct Ukrainian transliteration clearly has caught on with most English-language sources, although Kyiv has certainly overtaken Kiev. Until I see more reliable English-language sources using "Odesa", I'd say wait. Would a personal name be different? Example: as far as I'm aware, Wladimir Klitschko has never gone by his real-name "Volodymyr Klychko" outside Ukraine, so that would be surely wouldn't be changed per WP:COMMONNAME. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Per nom. The name of the city is Odesa in the official local language. Stationary (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is English-language Wikipedia and we should use the commonly-used English-language name. What it is called in the official language of Ukraine is not relevant to what it is called in English. As for the future, WP:CRYSTAL applies: at present lots of English-language TV programmes have "Odesa" on their maps; but their language skills are such that they usually pronounce Kharkiv wrongly (the first K should be silent). I do not think we can rely on these people for what places are called or how to pronounce the words.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    It is not a silent k: the first consonant in Kharkiv is the one in loch and Bach. I have found different English dictionaries which give its pronunciation as /k/,[7] /h/,[8] or /x/.[9] —Michael Z. 14:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The "recent" usages being referred to are a result of the on-going events; and are way too soon; and are clearly chaotic as put by Ymblanter — DaxServer (t · c) 13:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The established name in English, probably since its establishment by the Russian Empire in 1794, is "Odessa". The city is bilingual, both Russian and Ukrainian being common among the inhabitants. I found that out when I was there in 2005 and talked at length to a native son. Zaslav (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Very clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose' It is very clear upon a search that Odessa is by far the preferred name, even by pro Ukrainian English news sources.Thespearthrower (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Is Odesa actually an accurate transliteration of Оде́са? The Ukrainian Cyrillic character "c" represents an "ss" sound, not the "z" sound that "Odesa" would imply. The rendering "Odesa" slavishly transliterates the sequence of individual Ukrainian characters, not the pronunciation of the word as a whole that the characters represent. Cf the sound file of the pronunciation. That the "ss" is rendered "cc" in Russian and "c" in Ukrainian is neither here nor there in English; it's an "ss" sound so should be represented so in the transliteration. The common rendering in English, "Odessa", is a more accurate transliteration of Оде́са. "Odesa" misrepresents the Ukrainian. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    Many revised / updated transliterations into English, such as Beijing, Mumbai, Kolkata, Yangon or Kyiv still fall short of providing a truly satisfactory rendering of each city's native-language pronunciation. However, those revised / updated transliterations, as well as the transliteration into English of the city name Odesa, are the transliterations satisfactory to the cities' native countries {see "And Odesa (not Odessa!) shines — day and night!"} and have been accepted into use by reliable sources (many, but not all reliable sources, in the case of Odesa) without attempting to resort to more precise alternative transliterations. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    It would seem perverse to move from a commonplace, widely-known, widely-used transliteration which does not "fall short of providing a truly satisfactory rendering of (the) pronunciation" in either language to one which is actively unsatisfactory in both. The promotion of "Odesa" on the basis of literation differences between two schemes entirely distinct to English seems solely an opportunity to falsely indicate maximal differentiation between the pronunciations which is not there, with the consequent disbenefit of promoting mispronunciation of the Ukrainian form. Oppose. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    Mutt Lunker is mixing up the notion of transliteration with phonemic transcription, which we do not use. Odesa is the transliteration from Ukrainian, and Odessa from Russian, according to every single English-language and international system (see Romanization of Ukrainian and Romanization of Russian). I’m pretty sure no systemic transcription uses a double S for the s sound, either. —Michael Z. 17:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Between an e and an a, your actual English would tend to use a double s for the s sound. Not doing so will inevitably confuse people.
So only those English speakers who have studied these systems have a fighting chance of pronouncing this rendering of Оде́са correctly? How much under 1% will that be? "o-dez-a" or "o-dee-za" it is then.
All this aside though, WP:COMMONNAME. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: Odessa is the name used in almost all English-language reliable sources, which is the correct policy to apply. If we start choosing local preferences instead, soon we should have Roma, Moskva, Athenai. Leave well alone. Moonraker (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Other than the previously mentioned exceptions, all remaining local preferences are represented by stable exonyms. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
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.

Removing population number

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The stats for the population is from 2021. Due to the invasion, it has changed a lot. Due to this, I recommend that the population number not be written 2402:E280:3D6B:5DB:8857:964F:89F7:8493 (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It is still information which is referenced to reliable sources. It clearly says that this is a 2021 estimate and in this sense not misleading. Removal of sourced info is vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
It does not make any sense removing the information. If we knew what the changes were, then we would still want to know the 2021 population for comparison.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
No. The population statistic is the normal permanent population. We are WP:NOTNEWS and it needn’t be updated daily during an emergency. —Michael Z. 22:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Use the spelling Kyiv because this is not a historical article

Latest comment: 2 years ago26 comments7 people in discussion

User:Ymblanter performed a revert of user:Craigrottman to restore the use of Kiev not Kyiv spelling, with the edit summary “current consensus is to use Kiev in historical context.” This is false. The scope of the decision he refers to was “whether to use Kyiv or Kiev in an article.” This geographical article about the city of Odessa is clearly an “unambiguously current / ongoing topics (e.g. Kyiv Metro),” where “Kyiv is preferred,” as defined in that consensus. Like this one, the exemplary article has a “History” section, so this is not what it calls an “edge case.” The consensus is clearly to use the Kyiv spelling in all articles not subject to that decision, such as this one, and we shouldn’t start expanding its scope in opposition to the larger and better established consensus for the main article title Kyiv. —Michael Z. 18:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Your understanding of this consensus of this question has already been tested, and the result was a six-month topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@Mzajac: Ymblanter has a track record of false allegations and inappropriate conduct but nothing will happen because they're an admin. The conduct on this talk page is inappropriate. If Ymblanter wants to accuse other users of canvassing or threaten bans, that can be dealt with on a talk page or WP:ANI. Threatening blocks over such trivial stuff is WP:ADMINABUSE. We should be able to talk about these things without such hostility. Desertambition (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
I did not treat anybody with blocks, but indeed at some point I blocked your account for indefinite duration. Moreover, I am not acting as admin in this topic area. There is no way I can block Mzajac myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Since no one is participating in WP:BRD by discussing the edit, I’m going to go ahead and reinstate it. If one insists that it is against consensus, please get some more than our three opinions.
The name Kyiv appears in the article eight times, and it is poor editorial practice to arbitrarily change one of them. —Michael Z. 16:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
So your understanding of WP:BRD is that you are free to revert the edits to the state you prefer. Great. I will remember this.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
If you’d like to discuss the edit or solicit more opinions, then revert again, and proceed. Or let us know how you’d like to resolve this two-to-one dispute. —Michael Z. 20:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
And now you suggest that I use edit-warring as a dispute resolution avenue. Also great, in particular, from an administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This has been already resolved at the Kiev/Kyiv RfC, which result you have proven incapable of accepting, yet again here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
1) I explained why that does not apply here. 2) regardless of that and as I pointed out above, your preferred version leaves inconsistent spelling in the article, and so does not accomplish what you want, either. You’ve failed to respond to my arguments. —Michael Z. 20:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I would prefer to back Kiev, because it is absurd massaging the past to make it comply with the political needs of the present. But there is a problem; it confuses the readers using different spellings of Kiev in the article. The city has not changed name. Given that the politically-motivated and lobbied-for decision was to use Київ instead of the English-language name we ought to use that name, per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I want to impose the community consensus. This is the only thing I want. Actually, pretty much in every situation. What you say you "explained" is inconsistent with the consensus of the community. This reflects your own understanding, which has been previously demonstrated to be incompatible with this mentioned consensus. That's it. Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
So we have a dispute, now with four opinions. I’m not totally clear on Toddy1’s, but there isn’t a clear consensus for your revert. I suggest you try to change our minds or post an RFC if it’s not clear to you. —Michael Z. 20:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
We already had an RfC. I am not going to open the second one. Just accept the results of the first one and revert yourself. Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Do you mean this RFC: Talk:Kyiv/Archive 9#RfC: Kyiv/Kiev in other articles ? The consensus on “whether to use Kyiv or Kiev in an article: For unambiguously current / ongoing topics (e.g. Kyiv Metro), Kyiv is preferred.” I accept this. I think I’ll disengage now, because I am uncomfortable with this conversation. —Michael Z. 21:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Sure, For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive), do not change existing content. And, well, you know, WP:ADMINACCT.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Ymblanter is technically right per WP:OTHERNAMES. There's nothing wrong in using "Breslau", "Pressburg", "Danzig", "Pola" and "Kattowitz" as proper names in historical contexts to refer to "Wrocław", "Bratislava", "Gdańsk", "Pula" and "Katowice", respectively, but it's a huge sin to use "Kiev", which is even singled out as a distinct name in the article's lead for "Kyiv". Very absurd.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Kiev/Київ is used eight times in the article.
  • Three times it is used in a historical context: Voivode of Kyiv (1791), In 1866, the city was linked by rail with Kyiv and Kharkiv, Before being occupied by Romanian troops in 1941, ... The city was land mined in the same way as Kyiv.
  • The other five times it is used in a present day context.
(There is also a reference to Kyivsky Raion, but that is a reference to part of Odessa, not Kiev/Київ.)
Per WP:COMMONNAME the article should use a transliteration of Київ in the five times that it is used in a present day context. Everyone agrees that we have to abide by WP:COMMONNAME.
The question Ymblanter is raising is what should be use in the context of 1791, 1866 and 1941. If the article were about Odessa in the 18th/19th/20th Century, the RFC that Ymblanter cites would justify us ignoring the decision to move the article on Kiev to a transliteration of Київ. But it is not. It covers both the past and the present. Changing the spelling of Kiev/Київ in the article is confusing for readers. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
The difference between "Kyiv" and "Kiev" is much less obvious than, for instance, the difference between "Breslau" and "Wrocław" or "Danzig" and "Gdańsk", so it's very unlikely that the simultaneous use of both "Kyiv" and "Kiev" would confuse readers given that "Kiev" as a name is singled out in that article's lead (it's also improbable to believe that English readers would fail to recognise the meaning of the name "Kiev"). The example about "Voivode of Kyiv (1791)" just adds to the absurdity. We have "Kiev Voivodeship" (see also this list and note that Antoni Protazy Potocki who's referred to as "Voivode of Kyiv (1791)" is included), not "Kyiv Voivodeship" (this isn't even mentioned as an alternative name), so it's very natural to use "Kiev" in this context.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Well in that case, the correct decision is to use "Kiev" in the three historical contexts.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I strongly agree with the Kyiv-side here. It makes sense to distinguish between articles but not within them. For a parallel -- everyone understands what BCE/CE and AD/BC mean, so there's no risk of confusion, but it would be ridiculous to switch to BCE/CE for a non-Christian section within an AD/BC article. I think the original editors are too involved to compromise rationally (and @Ymblanter is not doing his status proud) so other editors will hopefully revive and contribute to real discussion. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I likewise agree with Michael Z. and GordonGlottal that the form throughout the article should be "Kyiv", as it seems counterintuitive to switch between "Kyiv" and "Kiev" within the same article. Since, according to the earlier postings in this discussion, the Ukrainian capital's name is mentioned eight times within the Odessa article and only three of those mentions refer to eras when the name was transliterated into English as "Kiev", therefore the majority use, which is also present-day use, should prevail. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

No consensus

After a month, by my count, one participant wants to use Kiev spelling throughout the article (user:Toddy1), two Kyiv (user:GordonGlottal and I), and two mixed spellings (user:Ymblanter and user:Kiril Simeonovski). Since there’s no consensus, we should fall back to the guidelines and consensus elsewhere, but YMblanter and I disagree on what the consensus is. So I will ask for more feedback at the WikiProjects listed on this page. —Michael Z. 00:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There is very cleat consensus expressed in the prevuos RfC which you pretend not to notice, I cited the relevant part above verbatim.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Mzajac, you should read the discussion more carefully. Discussions are not a vote. Good editors are open to changing their mind and to compromise. My initial position was that we should use one spelling throughout the article and it should either be Kiev or Київ (and I preferred Kiev). Kiril Simeonovski's post of 10:16, 9 March 2022 persuaded me that it's very unlikely that the simultaneous use of both "Kyiv" and "Kiev" would confuse readers. So I accepted that the correct decision is to use "Kiev" in the three historical contexts (post of 9 March 2022).-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I really don't care what's going to be the result of this discussion. My comment was mostly on the absurdity to avoid the use of "Kiev" in historical contexts when we use other names for other cities, especially in the case of the "Voivode of Kyiv (1791)" when we have the article Kiev Voivodeship. In my opinion, the best strategy to support the universal use of "Kyiv" would be to request changes from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" in all article names where it appears and, if it succeeds, to come back with concrete arguments other than trying to impose a general rule where it's impossible (it'd have been possible had "Kiev" in all articles containing it in their name been replaced with "Kyiv").--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The correct spelling for this Ukrainian City is "Odesa" not Odessa which is old Soviet era spelling. Kandyflip (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Under "Notable Odessans" I suggest including Nathan Bader, the father of American Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

SOURCE: Under her page at Wikipedia, it says:

Joan Ruth Bader was born on March 15, 1933, at Beth Moses Hospital in Brooklyn, New York City, the second daughter of Celia (née Amster) and Nathan Bader, who lived in the Flatbush neighborhood. Her father was a Jewish emigrant from Odessa, Ukraine, at that time part of the Russian Empire ...

Thus, an addition might look like this (I've never done this before):

Nathan Bader, father of the notable U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was a Jewish immigrant to the U.S. from Odessa, at that time part of the Russian Empire. 97.126.118.202 (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: See WP:WTAF, we don't have an article on Nathan Bader Cannolis (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Place names: established convention

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The discussion about the name of the city overlooks long-established custom. There is no necessity for the English-language name of a city to follow a "standard" transliteration of the name in the local language. For example, the capital of the Russian Federation in English is "Moscow", not "Moskva". The capital of Austria in English is "Vienna" not "Wien". The capital of Portugal in English is "Lisbon", not "Lisboa". The capital of Belgium in English is neither "Brussel" nor "Bruxelles", but "Brussels". ... and so on.

This is true in most European languages, not just English. For example, the French Wikipedia article about London correctly refers to the city as "Londres" not London. There have been exceptions, but in general Wikipedia policy follows historical common usage. Sayitclearly (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

If you ignore the above topics started by drive-by users who do not care about our policies, only of their political agenda, the discussions at every RM is whether Odessa or Odesa is the WP:COMMONNAME. So far the consensus was that this is Odessa, but it still might change. Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Cities get renamed all the time, including the romanisation method.
Sometimes, common English lang usage (which is what English wikipedia, e.g, this site, uses by policy) will switch over, sometimes it won't.
Odessa seems like it's rapidly transitioning to Odesa now -- even since the last move request, a few of the English dictionaries that were previously using 'odessa' as primary and 'odesa' as secondary, now use 'odesa' as primary, and 'odessa' as secondary.
This also matches what I've noticed in terms of US/UK media spelling it Odesa a majority of the time now. Even a few months ago, it was more varied. I'm guessing because of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, media have updated their styleguides since they're reporting Ukraine much more often. This is not universal though - I've noticed the NYTimes using 'odesa', but the Washington Post (which is my home town newspaper) still uses 'odessa'. Cononsense (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Former name of Odessa: Khadjibey

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The city of Odessa was founded as Khadjibey and retained the name until the Christianization of the area by Catherine the Great in the 18th century. Surely the former name needs to take place with the modern name in the first or second paragraph. 176.55.110.166 (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Already is in the second paragraph. —Michael Z. 17:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The Name section address the present name, it is not a substitute for the History section nor is it a History of Names section. From the proper History section we find the succession of names with explanation: (a) it may been the Port of Histria, (b) 14c. Italian maps give the fortress Ginestra, (c) 14th century, the Tatar settlement Kachibei (depopulated by the 15 century), (d) 15th century fortress Khadjibey , and presently as (e) Odessa (spelling in Ukrainian one "s"). We need not get into all the name evolution here, it is properly situated and explicated in the the History section. Tachypaidia (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please ...

Odessa should be Odesa. Spell it the Ukrainian way. 24.191.197.144 (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change Odessa to Odesa

The name of the city is Odesa. You can see it in every single official document and web of every single organisation. Why does english wikipedia supports russian imperial agenda for god's sake? LOOK, HERE IS ONE S https://odesa.aero/ Odesa is Ukraine (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  10:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Odessa (Russian: Оде́сса [ɐˈdʲesə])

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This was removed in March. I have reinstated it in the lede. I think the other native languages of Odessa should also be included in the article.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 09:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

MOS:LEADLANG says only a single name should be in the lede. In the articles on Ukrainian localities whose polulation predominantly (or widely) speaks Russian as a native language the current practice is to include both Ukrainian and Russian names. In this respect, the removal of the Russian name was against widely established consensus, and your restoration was according to the consensus. Hpwever, I am not aware of any consensus which would allow us to mention more than two names in the lede in violation of MOS:LEADLANG.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
As this article has a #Name section, we’d best follow the guidelines by moving all but one foreign-language names down there. As the city is in Ukraine, Ukrainian is official, Ukrainian-derived Latin spelling is official, and many English-language authors write about using current Ukrainian-derived spelling for place names in Ukraine, it would follow that the Ukrainian remains in the lead. —Michael Z. 13:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Odessa is predominantly Russian-speaking, the existing practice is to keep in the lede the name in the language spoken in the city. Do not worry, in twenty years no Russian speakers will be left, and the Russian name could be removed. Ymblanter (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Is this practice documented? I don’t see it at WP:UAPLACE or WP:UKR. I see it is not applied consistently. What is the gauge for “the language spoken” in a city?.
User:Ymblanter, resist the urge to take a crack at me every time we’re in the same discussion. It’s feeling like WP:HARRASSMENT. —Michael Z. 15:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
UAPLACE is specifically about the name of the articles. I do not think anybody disputes the naming (well, may be specifically for Odessa, but this is a separate issue, the vast majority of names are not disputed). As such, it is not surprising that UAPLACE does not say what should be in the lede. The practice is very old, may be Toddy1 might know whether it is documented anywhere. Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Obsolete

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

No informations about the war. Blocked port, shootings.Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/05/18/how-to-unblock-ukraines-ports-to-relieve-world-hunger Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-missiles-kill-18-in-residential-area-in-odessa-region-ukraine-says-11656665500 Xx236 (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2022/04/22/commentary/world-commentary/putin-wants-odessa/ Xx236 (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The Holocaust

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The text does not inform about deportation of the Jews to Transnistria. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/we-allow-you-to-die-what-happened-to-the-jews-odessa Something is wrong. Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

'25,000 Odessans were murdered' - weren't the vicitms Jewish? Xx236 (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Culture of Odessa

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Culture of Odessa" does not explain certain subjects, eg. "Odessa-Mama". The links misinform.Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Dyn32 (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Hello. I am a resident of Odesa, I ask you to edit this article, because the Latin name of this city is incorrect on the main page and and by the main link. According to the Ukrainian spelling, this city is called Odesa (with one letter S), while Odessa (with two letters S) is a translation from Russian language. Since in Ukraine the state language is Ukrainian and Russian is the language of national minorities, it will be correct to use the form with one S. Because of the wrong name of the city, many foreigners confuse its name and spell it incorrectly, which in a way offends the people of the city and me in particular. Thanks in advance.

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please supply a reliable source to support what you say, we will not be able to change it without a couple good sources. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Supporting references for changing spelling from Odessa to Odesa

To support the change of spelling from Odessa to Odesa, here are the references to consider:

  • Declaration of United Nation Group of Experts in regard to adoption of Ukrainian spelling[1]
  • Romanization system in Ukraine document stating the recommended spellings [2]
  • Recent adoption of the Ukrainian romanization system for geographical names by the US Board of Geographic names[3]

In Romanization of Ukrainian article, Odessa remains as the only city in Ukraine, including Temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine that is listed with spelling under the old BGN transliteration conventions from 1965.

Another consideration is the wider adoption of Ukrainian spelling among the Odessa population: 5-fold growth of Ukrainian-speaking population in Odessa over the recent 6 years[4]

I don't see any strong compelling arguments why the change of spelling to Odesa should be reverted. Internetyev (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetyev (talk • contribs) 03:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not about the spelling, it is about the most common name in English.It is also incorrect that Odessa is the only Ukrainian city with the most common English name different from Romanization.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
My wording implies that Odessa is the only city in Ukraine that is listed _on Wikipedia_ under old BGN conventions of 1965, which is correct. I do not state that Odessa is "the only Ukrainian city with the most common English name different from Romanization". I cannot find arguments to state that one variant is more common than the other because it is subjective and does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. Internetyev (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Romanization of Одеса is Odesa. Nobody is disputing this. I reverted your addition exactly for this reason.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
You have at this point 27 edits on Wikipedia. You are not the first person with less than 100 edits who comes here and, without having much understanding of how Wiokipedia works, tries to impose their vision. You are certainly not the first person who tries to get this article moves to Odessa. None of them could see the arguments why the article should be Odessa, but the consensus still was for Odessa. Try reading the archives of this page, may be you then understand why.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
No clue what you are talking about when you mentioned "romanization", but the name of the article should most likely indeed be Odesa. Sources linked to below. The same reasons and sources also apply for Kyiv, Lviv and Kharkiv which already follow the ukrainian naming pattern. --Blomsterhagens (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/res/res_10_9.htm
  2. ^ https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/10th-uncsgn-docs/econf/E_CONF.101_84_Roman_system_Ukraine_eng.pdf
  3. ^ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/romanization-systems
  4. ^ https://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/seventh_municipal_survey_may_2021_eng_-_v2.pdf
Recent news maps on many American, Canadian the British television news services have maps that are usinng the Ukrainian spelling for Odesa during reporting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I cast my vote in favour of "Odesa". It's a Ukrainian city, the official Ukrainian spelling is "Odesa", and the trend in the west has been to adopt proper Ukrainian transliterations of Ukrainian place names. I'd also like to say to Ymblanter, stop with the "I've edited more than you" bias. Everyone's say is equal. It rather sounds like you're trying to dictate your will here over the majority. -- 85.220.33.217 (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago49 comments21 people in discussion
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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed. Support arguments citing WP:MODERNPLACENAME and (implicitly) WP:COMMONNAME were persuasive, as was evidence that--once Odessa, TX was accounted for and filtered out--the single-s spelling predominated in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 21:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

– Several months ago, a similar requested move reached no consensus - an unusual result, as a number of other move requests to change articles to standard Ukrainian orthography (such as Kyiv) were accepted. The opposition arguments given generally summed up to, "Odesa is still spelled Odessa in common English usage" - giving links to dictionaries and news sources. I have since gone back and checked up the status of the linked dictionaries as they stand today. Lexico still says 'Odessa', but Collins now says 'another spelling of Odesa', which they list as the primary. Merriam-Webster, for Odessa,says that Odessa is a city in Texas, and as a second definition, says, "or Ukrainian Odesa city".

The same result happens when we search news sources that were previously claimed to support a "Odessa" spelling. To avoid bias that would be induced by searching for one or the other, I hinted at the city by searching articles that mentioned a Ukrainian port city but not Mariupol, Kherson or Mykolaiv. Of the news sources cited previously Reuters says Odesa, CNN says Odesa, CBC says Odesa, and The New York Times says Odesa (The Guardian and the BBC, the other two mentioned, had no hits for the above search in the past month). Indeed, the Christian Science Monitor specifically notes - in their article about why they're changing their spelling from "Odessa" to "Odesa" - that beyond general respect from people and the offended reactions they were getting from locals at "Dateline Odessa", standards across the industry have shifted to the Odesa spelling - including the Associated Press, which sets the standard for the industry in the US.

To be explicit, there has been a change since the last vote in what is acceptable and standard as the English spelling for Odesa.

I'll reiterate that these are the specific sources used by the opposition, which are now by and large clearly supporting the spelling of "Odesa". For example, when I use a dictionary I usually use Dictionary.com, which lists Odessa as "The Russian name of Odesa", and links to the primary article, Odesa. Given that by and large the opposition's own sources now support the rename, I find it hard to argue that the current naming should stand - hence, I'm reopening the naming discussion, on the grounds that the basis for the previous decision has changed (while interest in renaming continues). -- Rei (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Summary

  • Oppose - In English Odessa is still the most common, and we don't simply look at the time period since the Russian invasion. We don't even know who'll lay claim to Odessa a year from now. We should look at the last 10 years not the last 10 weeks. I see Odessa at NY Times, NY Post, Washington Post, Art News, and others. Six months ago it was overwhelming Odessa and books are still the same. No question that the recent two months has seen a seismic shift towards Odesa from the press. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - See the rename request justification above. Even the opposition to the rename's own sources in the past vote now all (but one) support the spelling "Odesa". You can't say "Odessa is still the main spelling" when almost nobody is spelling it that way anymore. For obvious reasons, there has been a conscious move by dictionaries and news sources to not use a spelling of a location that's offensive to its residents. Rather odd that some people on Wikipedia insist on doing what dictionaries and the news media has largely decided NOT to do. -- Rei (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - As per nom, seems pretty straightforward that we should use the country's own spelling - especially as more continue to update to the Ukranian spelling. | MK17b | (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - per request justifications above; Odesa has become the dominate spelling. The UN is using this spelling. Along with the appropriate redirects, a short footnote or parenthetical statement should be created in the lede for articles which have the word Odesa in the title, indicating the alternative historical spellings, just enough information that folks understand the difference in spellings they might see. eg: (historically also spelled Odessa).  // Timothy :: talk  01:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per Rei, Mk17b and TimothyBlue. Wikipedia follows WP:RELIABLE SOURCES and, in the same manner that reliable sources stopped using "Kiev" and started using "Kyiv", such sources have stopped using "Odessa" and started using "Odesa", which has now become the English spelling of this Ukrainian city's name. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. The start of the russian invasion changed everything about how cities in Ukraine are being spelled in English. Before the war, Ukrainian cities were mentioned in English language media only rarely and then Kyiv was still "Kiev" about half the time and Odesa was always "Odessa". Since 24 February, however, the spellings have changed virtually overnight, with "Kyiv" and "Odesa" being overwhelmingly more common. Put enough foreign journalists on the ground and they'll change spelling usage by force if need be. This goes right along with pronouncing "Kharkiv" with an [h] at the front instead of the older [k]. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    Interestingly this headline in the Washington Post on 1 July uses Kyiv but Odessa. There's not a blanket change to Ukrainian spellings. It's obviously very much case-by-case. DeCausa (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, and per reasons listed by other uses above. Reliable sources definitely seem to have switched over to the official Ukrainian spelling. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - per opposition's own sources now support the rename, OR opposition has to find another sources - and another justification (or excuse). Chrz (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Premature. I'm still seeing plenty of recent usage of Odessa in RS: WaPo 1 July, iNews 3 July, The Guardian 1 July, WSJ, 1 July etc. No reason to rush. It's been out of news in the last while - I'm sure they'll be a reportable incident that will put it back in the news in the near future and that will enable a more complete check to see if WP:NAMECHANGE has really taken place. DeCausa (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Comment btw The Gaurdiian link above uses Odesa not Odessa. The name change has taken place. Washington Post, NYTimes, LA Times, Guardian, and most other major newspapers have started using the Odesa spelling.  // Timothy :: talk  09:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Yes, you're right about the Guardian. But to state "The name change has taken place" just isn't true as an absolute statement - see for example the sources I cite. I don't think it's yet clear where the balance lies - time will tell. Washington Post is interesting in that there are 2 articles on 1 July with one using Odesa and the other using Odessa, and they are timestamped 35 minutes apart. DeCausa (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
        • Comment It took us nearly a decade to change "Kiev" to "Kyiv". There is no need to wait and quibble over minutiae before making this change. "Kyiv" broke tough sod, there's no reason that "Odesa" can't be quickly planted. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
          • Isn't that a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia? We don't have any objective to break "any tough sod". That's not WP's role. "Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow". It took that amount of time because it took the English-speaking world that time. There's no principle to be followed just because Kiev became Kyiv - the two are independent of each other as far as WP is concerned, although there may well be a connection in the broader English-speaking world (i.e. the invasion). We're fundamentally and intentionally lagging copy-cats. DeCausa (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
            Kyiv broke tough sod on wikipedia editors' heads, which were unable to comprehend that anyone/any language can "force" something into their precious mother tongue English. It is possible and now we know little better when it is essentially won (if AP on board, nearly there ... or something like that). Chrz (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
            • The "tough sod" wasn't "world opinion", it was "Wikipedia editors' reluctance to change without overwhelming evidence" (including my own because I was on the "Kiev" side until the very end). That is clearly tougher sod to break than the sod of world opinion. Anyone who has been an editor on Wikipedia longer than two weeks knows that Wikipedia can never be accused of shaping world opinion. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - I find no compelling argument to the contrary. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:MODERNPLACENAME and Tavio above—blindlynx 09:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is nothing wrong with either, but this move will be used to suppress the spelling Odessa and I therefore oppose it as not improving the encyclopedia as a whole. Srnec (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
    • "Suppress the spelling Odessa"? Unlike "Kiev", there are international uses of "Odessa" independent of the city in Ukraine, but even after Wikipedia switched to "Kyiv", there are still sources that use "Kiev" even in the context of the current russian invasion. It's an argument that has no supporting evidence. People do not use Wikipedia as a go-to source for spelling anything. But a deeper question that swirls around your answer is, "So what?" What is lost if the world recognizes the official spelling of "Odesa" as being superior to the former spelling of "Odessa"? Do you still write "Konigsberg" instead of "Kaliningrad"? Or "New Amsterdam" instead of "New York"? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
    Not sure what that means exactly, but indeed, it would lead to more use of the changed spelling. But it’s a matter of consensus, reflected in our timeworn guidelines, that we generally use the main-article-title spelling in the text of articles, and that we determine the main article title spelling by the principles outlined in WP:title. This reflects consensus, meaning most of us believe this improves the encyclopedia. —Michael Z. 00:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom, there has been a clear shift in English usage.--Staberinde (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, while there has been some increase in Odesa, Odessa far outstrips Odesa, see google ngram where Odessa is still twenty times more popular. Baxbox (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
    That’s misleading because 1) a huge proportion of that refers to Odessa, Texas, as well as other things listed in Odessa (disambiguation); and 2) It stops at 2019, and per the nom and various comments this is a recent change. —Michael Z. 22:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
    Odessa, Texas, really? Your Odessa (disambiguation) argument only makes your argument weaker as nearly everything in the disambiguation page was named after Odessa, Ukraine, this also includes the given name. Odessa is the established spelling form in English. Baxbox (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
    Your dismissal of Odessa, Texas and all of the other three dozen placenames and personal names shows that you don't understand the issue at all. Once another place or person has been named after something, its name is no longer tied to the original name. Even though there is strong incentive for us to write Odesa, Ukraine, there have been no attempts in Odessa, Texas to rename it to match the Ukrainian name. None. So if your ngram includes all of the other place and personal names which it, of course, does since you did not restrict the search, then your ngram is completely useless in this discussion and your argument based on it is misleading. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
    So if Bombay Sapphire Gin or crab Rangoon get popular and a lot of sources write about them, then we should rename articles about the cities Mumbai and Yangon again? It doesn’t work that way. —Michael Z. 00:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Support  This situation parallels the recent spelling change of Kyiv, and the decision to rename that article should be consulted. It found that there were two WP:COMMONNAMEs, and the arguments to use Kyiv were stronger, even though it may have not been the most common. In the case of Odesa, the proposed spelling is likely now the most common in current sources, including English-language news and English-language books. —Michael Z. 22:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
    Some evidence. The results have changed since I presented the same sources in the recent requested move above.
    Google News Search
    Google Advanced Book Search (English-language sources) is really showing off its “total results” bug in these searches. It looks like Google’s estimates are nonsense, but counting actual results returned does not clearly favour Odessa, and may indicate a dramatic opposite trend (viz. WP:GOOG).
    Looking at sources suggested by WP:Widely accepted name which are up-to-date and accessible:
    The English-language dictionaries use context labels, indicating that in a Ukrainian subject context, Odesa is the most commonly used spelling. An article on a city in Ukraine is an example of such a context.
    • Associated Press APStylebook: Russia-Ukraine War Topical Guide: “Odesa / (not Odessa) Ukrainian port city on the Black Sea.”
    • The Guardian and Observer Style Guide: O: “Odesa / not Odessa for the port city in Ukraine”
    • ABC (Australia) Style Guide: “Use Ukrainian romanisations for place names from that country: Kyiv, Lviv, Odesa, etc.”
    • Grammarly spelling reference uses Odesa.
    • The United States Board on Geographic Names uses Odesa.[12]: 8  BGN determines the usage of geographic names for the US government (and runs the Geo Names server mentioned above).
    • International Air Transport Association uses Odesa.[13] IATA determines naming of airports and locations in international aviation.
    Using the spelling Odesa also fulfils the WP:CRITERIA of precision (distinguishing from other subjects listed in Odessa (disambiguation)), and of consistency since nearly all Ukrainian place names are spelled according to the Ukrainian standard system of Romanization, as recommended by WP:UKR (and consistent with Nova Odesa).
    WP:MODERNPLACENAME tells us to use a current name. —Michael Z. 22:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:UE. —  AjaxSmack  03:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
    Doesn’t apply because this is not a “choice between anglicized and local spelling.” Both spellings are transliterations from foreign languages. Odesa appeared in English by 1685.[14] —Michael Z. 06:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
    Of course that’s before the foundation of the modern city, because it refers to old Greek Odessos on the same Black Sea coast, as does the name of the city. But the spelling Odesa was also used specifically for the Russian colony later: 1819, 1819, 1850. —Michael Z. 16:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is too soon to say whether the one-s spelling will surplant the traditional two-s spelling I looked at three British news organisations. The Economist and The Financial Times have had fairly good coverage of Ukraine for at many years; the state-run BBC also attempts world-wide coverage. The BBC and the The Financial Times both had far more stories using Odessa than Odesa. The Economist only used Odessa (though its search engine recognised Odesa for some stories).
-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Proper analysis would mean filter it by date. Older results won't tell you what is hip now, in recent years. Chrz (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
It appears BBC stopped using the Russian-derived spelling after May 5, 2022, the Economist after May 7, and FT after March 24. For the last two you can confirm this by sorting the results by date. —Michael Z. 12:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
It has?? Five days ago there was this, so it depends on who writes the story. Same with articles by the Washington Post, CBS News, or CNN news... so it seems to depend on who writes the story or what book you pick up. No question the trend the last few weeks has bent to Odesa, but Wikipedia usually looks at the last six months of data not six days of data. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Mzajac I have not even found one story on The Economist's site that uses the Odesa spelling. They all seem to use Odessa - including the ones after 7 May 2022, for example: 27 May 2022, 13 June 2022, 27 June 2022.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I was referring to the search links above, with “sort by date” selected. Economist has stories with both spellings.[15][16] I see that looking deeper, the sample is too small and the search doesn’t return all articles or something. —Michael Z. 00:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The articles on The Economist site returned by a search for "Odesa" do not use "Odesa" in the text; they use "Odessa".-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Given the extreme recentness of the alleged changes of usage (some of which never happened), it is too soon to say whether usage has changed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Is that the only one on BBC, from BBC’s local Bristol outlet? You know, when outlets change their style guide, they don’t necessarily stick to it 100.00%, for various reasons. Anyway, it’s AP, the Guardian, and ABC Australia that have published verifiable style guides changing to Odesa. —Michael Z. 00:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Of course Odesa should be called Odesa, if that is the Ukrainian word. Odesa belongs to Ukraine, and should be spelled according to the language of the country it is in. Imagine if London in the UK had to be called Londres instead of London, just because a neighbour country called it that. Absurd thought, right? Yet we expect Ukraine to put up with that exact absurdity. Give Ukraine the respect it deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.114.17 (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

You need to read the discussion concerning the change of "Kiev" to "Kyiv". Wikipedia isn't in the business of following the usage of names in other countries, it is solely in the business of reflecting usage among the majority of reliable sources in the English language. Once the majority of reliable sources in English had begun using "Kyiv", then Wikipedia switched. That is the only issue to be decided here. What do English language sources use? This has nothing whatsoever to do with what the official spelling in Ukraine is or is not. Changing "Kiev" to "Kyiv" took about a decade to resolve because English language sources were only slowly switching their usage. The change from "Odessa" to "Odesa" is happening much faster because russia's invasion has accelerated the switch exponentially faster in English language reliable sources than the switch from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" took. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Imagine if London in the UK had to be called Londres instead of London, just because a neighbour country called it that. About that... --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:D5C9:8659:B360:48D6 (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
A more appropriate analogy would be Japan wanting to be known as the Dai Nippon Teikoku. The reason for the "Dai" [great] was that it meant that the name for Japan would appear earlier in an alphabetical list of nations. Should Japan have had the right to demand that English-speakers abandon the English-language name for Japan, and use a transliteration of a Japanese-language name? Because this is analogous to what Ukrainian-diaspora editors have been pushing for with great success over the past 20 years: that the English-language should abandon English-language names for places in Ukraine and adopt transliteration from Ukrainian names instead.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
The discussion is mainly about our guidelines and what’s used in reliable sources. I do believe there is a place for moral questions in correctly implementing Wikipedia’s goals, such as the important one about being aware of our own colonial viewpoints that’s discussed in WP:BIAS.
But user:Toddy1 trying to demonize “Ukrainian-diaspora editors” is an ad hominem argument aimed at an indeterminate group of boogeymen, and a vaguely racist example of trying to WP:right great wrongs. Doesn’t belong here. Shame.
Regarding supposed “English-language names,” the fact is that both Odessa and Odesa spellings are derived from, associated with,[17] and correspond to transliterations from[A][B] foreign languages. Odesa has been attested in English for at least two centuries (wikt:Citations:Odessa). —Michael Z. 16:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
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.

Odessa Railways

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have started a RM at Talk:Odessa Railways#Requested move 28 July 2022. I'm neutral as to the outcome but comments and !votes are welcome. There may be other pages to treat similarly. Certes (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is in the news

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 —Michael Z. 13:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odesa/Archive_2&oldid=1256401136"