Talk:Subdivisions of Kyiv

Moving two relevant discussions here from Irpen's and Michael's talk pages

Your vandal-like edits

from user talk:Irpen

Dear Irpen, you have purged the link to my newly-written Subdivisions of Kiev from the Kiev page. Without any freaking discussion or notice. Could I kindly ask you to revert such a vandalous edit of yours, and not to do that ever? AlexPU 09:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh, Alex. If something doesn't look right, it's best to discuss it with an editor before making accusations. —Michael Z. 2005-11-12 17:13 Z

OK, let's put aside the word vandal. For now ... And I've reverted that edit for myself AlexPU

This sounds all too familiar. Wasn't I saying just that lately?

Alex, I suggest you take a look at the recent heat in Ukrainian topics in WP and try to help cooling it off rather than heating it up. As for your change, I linked to an article that seemed to me more appropriate. I have nothing against your article and if you would just changed something back, I would not have called you a vandal. I made a change that seemed to me for better, you may disagree too. As for two articles now raions vs subdivisions this is a topic of a separate discussion. I would say, we merge them. --Irpen 18:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm too busy now to study Wikiethics pages thoroughly (which I'll definitely do sooner or later, becoming a kind of Wiki prosecutor :) ). But I guess I've never orphaned anybody's article, at least without notice. Again, this is purely the editing ethics issue. It has freaking nothing to do with Ukraine, Russia, Startrek or any particular topic. So please don't ask me cool or heat something. I'll watch your a... edits, zemliak. Best wishes, AlexPU 18:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

By heating up I meant calling a good-faith edit a vandalism. You are jumping he gun all too fast. You are welcome to watch my edits. I could only welcome that. --Irpen 21:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Subdivisions of Kyiv

from user talk:Mzajac

Hi Michael. Here is the article of a man who haven't been writing in English for a few months. Would you please making it a little bit normal? And of course sharing your thoughts on how to use it best? Details on the respective talk page. Thanks, AlexPU

I'll read it over and see what I can add. I think you may want to merge it into this initial article: Raions of Kiev. —Michael Z. 2005-11-11 21:12 Z

Second that. I think Raions of Kiev is just a broader article that covers both administrative raions and informal neigborhoods. --Irpen 21:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Broader than what, Irpen? (Ask my question after resolving the issue of your recent reckless edit to Kiev). Moving discussion to respective talk page. AlexPU 10:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Alex, in two days you called me a Vandal and Reckless. You don't need that and I definetely don't need that. More at you talk.

Now to the issue. The article Raions of Kiev is a broader topic than Subdivisions of Kiev. The former includes all of the latter plus informal disctricts and neigborhoods. The topic isn't huge to spin-off the administrative subdivisions into a separate article. As such, the articles are bound to duplicate each other to a large degree and I don't see a need for that. There is no harm, of course, but it is confusing for the readers. Therefore, I thought it is better to add the info you wrote to an existing Raions of Kiev rather than have two separate article on so close issues. That's what is called merging. If you disagree, we can discuss it but civilly and without name calling. --Irpen 21:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• I just can't see how the smaller and less detailed article could be "broader" than the larger and more detailed one. Can anybody? Next, why the hell subdivision would be a narrower topic than raions? IMHO, the raions is only the administrative subdivision, while the neighborhoods is also the historical, urbanistic, real estate, architectural etc. Am I wrong, Michael? Irpen, this looks like an opposition for the sake of opposition. I think you misread something in your fury of fighting with Andriy:). However, I fully agree with merging these two articles. And I suggest, again, the title Subdivisions of Kiev for the new page. Any other thoughts, people?
• Freaking again: I've never been even thinking about name calling or conflicts in topical discussions. I only fight against such censor/vandal-like actions as reverting without notice and discussion, orphaning articles and purging links.
• Please, Irpen, don't tell me what do I need. Too many people and institutions in Ukraine are telling us what to think or to say. I won't stand this shit at least in the Net. If I suspect somebody of being a vandal and/or Moscow propagandist on Wiki pages, I will preserve my right to say it loud here. AlexPU

Raions of Kiev

There seems to be a break (or perhaps inclarity) between when there were 6 raions and then the jump to 14. Anyone want to fix this? I think it may be that there were 8 raions run by Raion Councils and 6 Party-Territory raions, making 14 in total? -- mno 00:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, mno! Nice to see a new person, who is interested in the topic. I took the info on subdivision history from the external link I cited in the article. Check it out. My understanding is that the number of raions has been gradually increased to 14 over the Soviet time, and there were quite some changes during that period, which makes the story more complicated than 6+8=14. --MapLover 03:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Bykivnia

If your spelling Bykivnya is better, change the name, please.Xx236 13:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Consistency in spelling of City's Raions

Can somebody give me good explanation for putting -sky at the end of each name?

I do not see the reason why someone changes names of the Kiev city raions by adding -sky to the end of them. That is not how you make an adjective out of a noun in the English language. The whole purpose to differentiate Darnytsia from the Darnytsia Raion is to write Darnytsia for the neighborhood or the general area and the Darnytsia Raion for the administrative division. In English it is incorrect to refer to an object only by its adjective (unless being repeated) as it can be done in the Slavic-based languages. I understand to include the correct transliteration of the official name, but all these "skies" are just too much. No one says Moskovsky Kreml, right? In English, it is the Moscow Kremlin, Nizhniy Novgorod Kremlin, Novgorod Detinets (Kremlin) and so on. No one in New-York calls Bronx, Bronxskiy or Manhattonskiy even though the original areas are also much smaller. The same goes with the Kievan streets such as Andriiv decent instead of Andriivsky descent. The fact that descent goes right after the name it already implies that they are connected. That is one of principals of the English grammar, which is different from the Ukrainian, for example. In Ukrainian even a verb can be a subject in certain situation, which is not the case in English. There are a certain order, messing with which might result in confusion. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As well, this'll have the added benefit of making these names easier to pronounce to non-speakers of Ukrainian/Russian. ··· MNO (Hi!) 03:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)