Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places)

Centralization re: decommunization of names

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith @Mzajac @Ymblanter I think these discussions should be more centralized and visible to the broader community. It's a stretch to claim precedent when there is no real wide participation. Even the Talk:Kadiivka RM from "Stakhanov" had relatively few participants compared to celebrated discussions like Gdansk/Danzig, (London)Derry, or even KyivNotKiev etc etc so

As for invocations of WP:UAPLACE, it took a very close perusal to see where the purported legalistic basis to support name changes lies. Rather than attempts at back-alley WikiHermeneutics, the common-sense approach is to seek wider consensus, and potentially an RfC, about what guidelines, if any, there should be regarding decommunized names in "temporarily occupied" areas.

Also, to be absolutely clear, WP:UAPLACE is not a policy or a guideline, but merely an information page.

Anyway, pinging @Slatersteven and @Cinderella157 as they have extensive track records of consensus-building, mediation, and stuff, with complementary and differing cognitive/methodological approaches to complex issues.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The thing is that we just had a common RM and it failed miserably. The conclusion was to renominate the localities separately, and this is what is happening now. What I am really disappointed with is that they are now being nominated one by one using exactly the same arguments, as if nothing was discussed before. Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Though it would be great to have more participants of course. Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

As the RM's are closed, I am unsure that it expected. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

No, there are about a dozen which are open. Ymblanter (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that some of them have actually been moved, and my arguments were completely ignored (not even reflected in the closure statements). Fine, I guess the best I can do it to move to a different topic area. This one became completely polluted by POV editors. Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hm, a quick search identified at least these 3 recent closures by 2 different editors:

• Talk:Piatypillia#Requested move 6 November 2023
• Talk:Sofiivka, Horlivka Raion, Donetsk Oblast#Requested move 4 November 2023
• Talk:Buran, Ukraine#Requested move 4 November 2023

Like in maybe 80% of all closures, both sides’ arguments were “ignored,” because closer only wrote the result: “moved.”

The exception has a closing summary written by a 3rd closer. In this case, Ymblanter commented objecting to the application of UAPLACE (but didn’t actually write “oppose”), and the summary referred to only COMMONNAME and not the fallback convention UAPLACE – perhaps it didn’t need to be considered for the decision at all.

• Talk:Lypske#Requested move 5 November 2023

IMO, Ymblanter’s complaint appears to be unfounded, given these RMs. If I missed any that tell a different story, please let us know.

Using negative labelling “polluted by POV editors” by a minority-POV editor, along with its implications, is unhelpful.  —Michael Z. 18:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for creating this discussion. I'm not very experienced at all with these kinds of large-scale RfCs (which is why I hadn’t created one myself) so I probably wont be participating in this that much, but this should be very useful. Regardless, I won’t create any more RMs on this topic until this discussion reaches consensus. HappyWith (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

we can't centralize RM's as each page will have unique issues. Each RM must be assessed on its own merits.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I recall being told quite recently that there is a broad consensus on these names.

Anyway, the recent RMs have passed based on consensus, guidelines including WP:WIAN, WP:PLACENAME, and WP:MODERNPLACENAME, and evidence from reliable sources. UAPLACE has not replaced them: in fact the RMs have reinforced the usefulness of UAPLACE as a predictor of consensus on place names in Ukraine (consensus-making will naturally decide whether these RMs are a precedent or not).

Counterarguments have been you can only rename something you control, which is just a rephrasing of “use Moscow’s name and not Kyiv’s (because might makes right)” – but either side of that argument is moot, because WP:OFFICIALNAME: naming is a broader agreement out of the control of either Bankova or the Kremlin. Article titling comes from the use of names in RS and editors’ consensus.

Blaming UAPLACE is a distraction. Core guidelines and consensus are handling these RMs perfectly adequately. A bunch of obscure villages under Moscow’s occupation are not likely to become a “celebrated” discussion that editors flock to.

But go ahead and challenge the closed RMs on procedural grounds and widely publicize the ones in progress. Whatever determines a broader consensus and satisfies the complaints is positive. If RS show changed usage next year, you’re welcome to file RMs to change back (as some vowed to do after the celebrated Kyiv RM).

Still want to file an RFC? Suit yourself. There’s no deadline.  —Michael Z. 17:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've been trying to get my head around the issue. I can see the multi-move at Talk:Kirovske, Donetsk Oblast#Requested move 25 October 2023 and an earlier discussion at the same page. There are multiple moves by HappyWith such as this move at Talk:Sverdlove#Requested move 12 November 2023. The proposition is to adopt the official Ukrainian name changed from a former name ca 2016. Per WP:MODERNPLACENAME, Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage. The circumstances are that these localities have little to no mention in English language sources since 2016 for either name based on Google searches or similar. However, WP:WIAN would have us consult a range of sources including gazetteers and geographical databases. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines would tell us when there is no English common name, the modern official name ... should be used. At multiple places, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) qualifies official name as local official name. Herein lies the nub of the issue when these places have not been controlled by Ukraine since before Ukraine proclaimed the changes of names and whether the Ukrainian government official name is the local official name. We could argue the legalities of official in respect to de jure v de facto but the adage is that possession is nine-tenths of the law. WP deals with such issues at arms length. We follow, we do not lead. Adopting the Ukrainian government name can be seen as endorsing the Ukrainian government and bolsterism for the Ukrainian cause. No matter what our personal opinions are, we should take every care to not only be apartisan but appear to be apartisan. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Have the gazetteers and like listed at WP:WIAN changed? If not, then we certainly should not. Until there is a clear good reason to change these names, we should be guided by there is WP:NODEADLINE. Because of the inherent POV issues relating to these article names, it probably is something to be resolved by RfC and broader community scrutiny regarding applying the local official name.

There are some other issues I see regarding WP:UAPLACE. This would be the tendency to quite long article titles when there may be no actual requirement (no real article title conflict) for a long but precise title. There is also an issue of capitalisation of terms for levels of political divisions (eg Luhansk Oblast) when such capitalisation of oblast is not supported by sources (see here). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the very good summary. I’ll add:

• In the case of recent moves in this category, although small in number, there had been recent sources named in WIAN which supported the move.
• RGW can cut either way: don’t take the title to mean that a position that may be morally correct cannot also be the one mandated by the guidelines. Editors’ ideas of right and wrong vary. IMO insisting that occupied status (that has nothing to do with guidelines) should determine the title, while the actual evidence, policies, and consensus should not, is textbook RGW if it is based on supposed “rightness.”

 —Michael Z. 15:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your statement about UAPLACE causing a tendency towards unnecessarily long article names, though I don't think that's actually in the infopage - it's just a standard editors have seemingly drifted towards over the years. Ex: if the name of a hromada is unique, I don't see why we have to list the name of the raion and oblast after it every time. This could theoretically get even more comically long-winded if there happen to be two settlements with the same name in the same hromada. HappyWith (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm guilty of this. I do agree there's actually not that much sense for it, still I think it is nice that Ukrainian localities use consistent names. This does require some discussion. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to explain my main argument here the way I see it: I think that when there is no WP:COMMONNAME, we should choose the name given to the settlement by the Ukrainian government.

This is because, while I think it's true that the DPR and LPR have refused to accept the changed names, there are not actually any WP:RS that I know of that cover this fact - it's only their own press releases. Some of these settlements are so obscure that I had to search really hard to even find references confirming that they were occupied. There aren't any RS - or even less-than reliable sources that I know of - where it says something like "The local separatist authorities still refer to Boikivske as Telmanove", for instance. Even since the start of the full-scale invasion in Feb 22, these settlements are so far behind the frontline that they've gotten no coverage from RS that mentions the Russian government names for them, etc. It's essentially original research to say that the de facto authorities, or the locals in the settlements, still use the communist names, even though it's probably true.

Another argument I've made before is that Wikipedia should follow the coverage style of RS. RS have recently shifted to preferring to use modern Ukrainian names, like Odesa instead of Odessa, and Dnipro instead of Dnieper, etc - and so we should follow their example. I apologize that I can't link some policy to support this argument, but I assume that must be a policy even though I don't know the specific shorthand. International organizations and non-news sources seem to especially like using decommunized names, like the OSCE and the ISW. The OSCE's usage may be because it's illegal to use the old names (although, I'm not sure how true this is? The Mariupol mayoral advisor uses "Telmanove" in this article [1] ) but I don't know if that actually matters to us at WP. I think, even if it's because of censorship, we can still interpret a usage standard in well-respected sources.

I think it also somewhat matters that, from 2016 to 2022, the occupiers were unrecognized separatists. I think this sets the Donbas settlements slightly apart from the Crimean ones - even though Russia is also an illegal occupier there, it's at least a real country. The L/DPR were unrecognized by every country in the world, including Russia. I think that "endorsing the Ukrainian POV" isn't really POV in that case, given how international media and the United Nations were (and are) also overwhelmingly on that side of the issue.

Like Michael said, UAPLACE isn't really an issue here - I think my argument still makes sense even without citing it.

Sorry for how rambly this was, I hope it makes sense. Like I said, I'm not experienced with these kinds of large-scale discussions, but I wanted to try to explain my personal reasonings here. HappyWith (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I apologize that I can't link some policy to support this argument I think WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Official names are propagated through electronic databases: most states maintain their own central one, and the UN, the US GNIS, and others draw on those. UN agencies and international organizations are among the first consumers, because they work with states and have policies on respecting states’ self-identification, and have the technical framework to consume these databases. Online mapping draws on them too.

“it's illegal to use the old names” – dubious: can you cite this? (Every country has policies that specify official names of places, but that doesn’t criminalize calling things something else.)

The occupiers were not “unrecognized separatists.” It was an open secret that they were Russian-controlled proxies, and much of the press was really bad for both-sidesing their identity. The MH17 trial legally established that this was an international conflict because they were under the overall control of Russia from at least mid May 2014, and the ICC (if I recall correctly) established that there was no civil conflict at the same time, therefore Russia was responsible for all of their war crimes. They were Russia under international law. And the 2022 Russian invasion and “annexation” put the nail in the coffin. The press practically never refers to the so-called DLNR, mostly no longer refers to “pro-Russian separatists,” but to territory “occupied by Russia before February 2022.” Academic sources concur. The timelines were different, but Russia “recognized” the proxies that it set up and controlled in both Crimea and in the Donbas, and then it annexed (or “annexed”) them both, and wrote these territories of Ukraine into its own constitution. The only difference is that the DLNR nominally had militias: they were commanded by Russian officers from practically the beginning. The “People’s Militia of the Donetsk People’s Republic” was also the 1st Army Corps of the 8th Combined Arms Army of the Russian Armed Forces, and the PMLNR was the 2AC of the 8CAA.  —Michael Z. 02:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I‘ve heard Ymblanter say it’s illegal, but I’m not sure how true it is either. I think this comes from a misinterpretation of the law? I think it’s illegal to glorify or deny communist+fascist atrocities, not to call settlements by their old names. HappyWith (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've participated in several of these RMs. I don't see a point in this discussion. There should be no convention or general rule, as I see it geographic-specific rules overcomplicate editing in a topic area and thus hinder improvement. We have enough Wikipedia policies to suit each RM that is started. I incite HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith to keep starting RMs if they think there's a strong case for it, I myself have voted against some of them when I deemed it necessary, so it's not because I blindly support applying Ukrainian government names whenever possible. Though I do believe some of them should have had more research behind before the decision of starting them was made.

Regarding Cinderella157's comments I disagree that there is room for interpretation as to what the official names of Russian-occupied settlements in Ukraine are. In Wikipedia we use de jure maps, all of these localities use maps of Ukraine and their infoboxes and articles state they're part of Ukraine. I think "official" is inherently connected to the de jure situation, exceptions being for example Stepanakert (there's a RM anyway) which used the separatist name because most English-language sources do so; many (likely most) of the occupied Ukrainian localities do not have a common English name. I think any alternative to using de jure as a fixed standard is quite arbitrary and problematic, should we move articles any time one of the two sides makes territorial advances? Should we leave the original title under which the article was created? By what policy is this supported?

Personally I don't think any useful conclusion will come out of this discussion, this wave of RMs will eventually fade away and the articles in which consensus for moving was found will be moved and those in which consensus was not found for moving will not be moved. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

There are about 40 settlements that I have on my list of articles that still use the pre-decommunized name as their title, so it would be convenient to establish consensus on this issue so I don't have to RM each one, but I agree that it's unlikely we're going to reach consensus here. I think I'll start working on research to submit another medium-sized multimove to try and clear out the least-controversial ones. HappyWith (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• WP:NCPLACE would tell us: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. The premise of these moves is that there is no WP:COMMONNAME. WP:WIAN would list GNIS as one source to consult to determine the widely accepted name, it is one source. Google and Apple maps are not listed and from what I have seen, theses are often in conflict for the subject articles. Google Maps has a record of questionable naming and names can be changed by user submission without reasonable editorial oversight. At WP:RSP, there is no consensus that it is generally reliable. As I said before, where WP:NCPLACE would defer to the official name where there is no WP:COMMONNAME, it also refers to the local official name at several places. It would state in the lead: ... we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. Fairly explicitly, it is telling us to ignore such arguments such as this is the de jure official name that we ought to use. WP:WIAN would state: For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed [emphasis added]. Just as a revolution etc can lead to a name change, it can also prevent a name change being adopted when subsequently being imposed from without. This BBC News article would report that the Ukrainian government would eventually impose the name changes in Crimea but only upon return of Crimea to Ukraine. Is it perhaps wishful thinking that the government can impose such changes in DPR and LPR controlled areas now annexed by Russia? As I observed above, possession is nine-tenths of the law. HappyWith reported: ... while I think it's true that the DPR and LPR have refused to accept the changed names, there are not actually any WP:RS that I know of that cover this fact - it's only their own press releases. I suggest that these reports fall to WP:ABOUTSELF and are reliable for reporting that the names within their control are not changing. Considering the prevailing WP:P&G (including WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:NODEADLINE), we probably should not be changing such article titles for localities which have not been controlled by the Ukrainian government since it passed laws to change their names. There may be some exceptions that tend to WP:COMMONNAME English language usage but these would be exceptional in this context. I would observe that there are probably passionate views here as to how these localities ought to be named but this is all the more reason to poll the consensus of the broader community. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Should we make an RFC then? Seems like this discussion has only involved the same five people that keep voting in the RMs. HappyWith (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  WIAN does say “maps (such as those from the National Geographic Society), whether printed or electronic.” I have cited Google and Apple as having full coverage, being regularly updated, and widely used map sources. Could also consult Bing Maps (part of MS Windows), MapQuest, and others in Category:Web Map Services, but those I checked were sufficient to demonstrate that the changed names are being adopted by RS.  —Michael Z. 19:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  (Everyone, please stop referring to “DPR and LNR controlled areas.” These are occupied by Russia and have been de-facto controlled by Russia for a decade, and Russia gave up its pretences over a year ago. If we are concerned with avoiding what someone or other thinks ought to be, then please let’s use the neutral language of current, reliable sources. I am glad to provide sources if there is doubt.)  —Michael Z. 19:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  To be plain, assertions that the “local official name” is the one imposed from the Moscow Kremlin look like OR to me, and need more backing than invoking the names of the so-called “DLNR.”  —Michael Z. 20:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's also worth mentioning that "local official names" are in my view hard to identify in areas controlled by a state in which this happens [2] [3]. Few civilians in occupied Ukraine would dare to use the Ukrainian government names in the public space but that does not mean there is some widely accepted name among the populace like the syntagma "local official name" could imply. we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. this will also depend on the context. From an international and legal point of view Ukrainian government names are used, from a public point of view within the localities the old names are used, and from the popular and private point of view we can't reliably know. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Fairly explicitly, it is telling us to ignore such arguments such as this is the de jure official name that we ought to use. I believe this is Cinderella157's own personal interpretation of this vague set of words, above is my own interpretation. I think there's a margin for discussion and interpretation of these policies in the case of which a RfC may indeed be due. For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed here I'd argue the policy was not written having in mind current (as in currently developing) events. Proof of this could be calling the fall of the USSR "recent". Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The “local official name” argument is also illogical. The supposed local official names used by Russia are Russian, not Ukrainian, because Ukrainian language is de facto banned and certainly not officially used. Recent moves have included: Proletarske → Piatypillia (where the “local official name” would be Russian Proletarskoye), Karlo-Marksove → Sofiivka, Horlivka Raion, Donetsk Oblast (Russian Karlo-Marksovo), and Enhelsove → Buran, Ukraine (Russian Engelsovo). The entreaty to respect local official names is not something even its proponents have been proposing or considering.  —Michael Z. 21:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I have listed some of the affected pages that I am aware of for which move requests have been made. Might others add to this list. We might also add other potentially affected localities. These would be localities for which the Ukrainian government legislated name changes in 2016, for which there are Wiki articles and which have not been controlled by the Ukrainian government since prior to the legislative change. These would also be localities in areas that were nominally controlled by the DPR/LPR, since the legislative changes are acknowledged to not affect Crimea. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• Talk:Kirovske, Donetsk Oblast#Requested move 25 October 2023 (multi-page move) - not moved
• Talk:Piatypillia#Requested move 6 November 2023 - moved
• Talk:Sofiivka, Horlivka Raion, Donetsk Oblast#Requested move 4 November 2023 - moved
• Talk:Buran, Ukraine#Requested move 4 November 2023 - moved
• Talk:Lypske#Requested move 5 November 2023 - moved
• Talk:Kholodne, Donetsk Raion, Donetsk Oblast#Requested move 12 November 2023 (and Voikovskyi → Kopani, Donetsk Raion, Donetsk Oblast) - moved

In addition to those I mentioned above, the supposed “local official names” are Russian Sverdlovo not Ukrainian Sverdlove, Voikovskii not Voikovskyi, and Krasnyi Oktiabr, but some would have it spelled Krasnyy Oktyabr. —Michael Z. 06:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Months later, it seems to me that there is a conflict between UAPLACE (an information-page essay) and NCPLACE (a guideline), so the former has to be clarified; that the UAPLACE "rule" hasn't been followed anyway; that the RM results are inconsistent, probably directly as a result of this conflict; and nothing's been done to resolve this. I would thus suggest that peeps most involved with this page propose a specific wording change to resolve the problem (or just do it WP:BOLDly and see if it sticks), leaning toward following WP:COMMONAME and NCCPLACE like everywhere else. This page should be saying how to apply the policy and the broader guideline to this specific-country context, not trying to defy them. After that and any other issues are resolved, this should be proposed at WP:VPPOL for promotion to {{Guideline}}. It really doesn't serve anyone's purposes to have this lingering around in an essay state. Either it's reparable and is advice that should be followed, or it is irreparable old junk that should be marked {{Historical}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation of settlements in same raion/hromada

The page does not mention how to disambiguate between settlements that are in the same raion but in different hromadas (e.g., there are two villages named Hannusivka in Oleksandriia Raion), or in same hromada but in different starosta okruhs (e.g., there are two villaged named Volodymyrivka in Domanivka settlement hromada). Actually, the page doesn't mention starosta okruhs at all. Shwabb1 (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Are there actual articles that exist (or about to exist) that require disambiguation? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

One example that I know of is the two Hrabove villages in Kovel Raion, Volyn Oblast - one in Serekhovychi rural hromada and another in Shatsk settlement hromada. I'm uncertain whether there are any other articles like these in English Wikipedia, but there are many examples in Ukrainian Wikipedia. Shwabb1 (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

There's two villages named Topoli in the same hromada. In that case we focus on their legal administrative status, one is a selo (village) while the other is a rural-type settlement. Thus we have Topoli (village), Kharkiv Oblast and Topoli (rural-type settlement). Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The naming conventions here have the potential to create some ridiculously long article names. The first principle of disambiguation is that we only disambiguate actual conflicts in article names. Hence, if there are five places in the world called A but only one has an article, no disambiguation should be applied. Secondly, disambiguation is not applied to a primary target but I will assumme that most of these places are obscure and there is no particular one in a set of localities sharing the same name that is particularly well known in English or might otherwise reasonably be given primacy. We should then disambiguate with the highest administrative division sufficient to achieve this. For three localities (A1, A2 and A3) if A1 is in oblast X but A2 and A3 are in oblast Y, Then we would name A1 as "A,X". We would distinguish A2 and A3 by their raions (eg M and N raions) giving titles "A,M" and "A,N". We can avoid using the administrative levels in the article title except if this is necessary for disambiguation (eg Donetsk for the city but Donetsk Oblast).

Considering the examples provided in the above responses: There are only two Wiki articles for Hrabove. I would title these as: Hrabove, Serekhovychi rural hromada, Volyn Oblast → Hrabove, Serekhovychi and Hrabove, Shatsk settlement hromada, Kovel Raion, Volyn Oblast → Hrabove, Shatsk. There are only two articles for Topoli on Wiki. Distinguishing these by their administrative status is an appropriate solution. I would title these as Topoli (village), Kharkiv Oblast → Topoli (village) and Topoli (rural-type settlement) → Topoli (rural settlement).

If these options dont work in a particular situation, we might disambiguate based on relative position within a raion - eg Hrabove, Serekhovychi rural hromada, Volyn Oblast could be Hrabove, eastern Kovel and Hrabove, Shatsk settlement hromada, Kovel Raion, Volyn Oblast could be Hrabove, western Kovel. Note that the positional descriptor is in lower case and does not imply an official name that Western Kovel might.

These are some thoughts that address potential improvement of the advice herein as well as the more specific question posed. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Serekhovychi, Shatsk, and Kovel are settlements - not the regions that they are the centers of. If using the administrative divisions rather than their centers:

Hrabove, Serekhovychi rural hromada, Volyn Oblast → Hrabove, Serekhovychi rural hromada or Hrabove, eastern Kovel Raion

Hrabove, Shatsk settlement hromada, Kovel Raion, Volyn Oblast → Hrabove, Shatsk settlement hromada or Hrabove, western Kovel Raion

With the hromadas, the titles may seem a bit long but they are shorter than the current titles, so it's an improvement. Shwabb1 (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the "Hrabove, Serekhovychi rural hromada" proposal - it makes it as short as possible, while still being precise and systematic. HappyWith (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Could somebody explain why (for the purpose of disambiguation) it is necessary to say Hrabove, Serekhovychi rural hromada rather than Hrabove, Serekhovychi or Hrabove, Shatsk settlement hromada rather than Hrabove, Shatsk? WP:AT would prefer concision over precision not necessary for disambiguation. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Serekhovychi and Shatsk are both settlements, not administrative divisions. Saying Hrabove, Serekhovychi is comparable to saying Orange, Sacaramento instead of Orange, California - Sacramento is the capital of California, just like Serekhovychi is the center of Serekhovychi rural hromada. If you want to shorten the titles even more, perhaps Hrabove, Serekhovychi hromada and Hrabove, Shatsk hromada could work. Shwabb1 (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but the analogy doesn't work. Hrabove is within Serekhovychi [hromada] and Hrabove is within Shatsk [hromada]. Orange [City], California is not within Sacaramento. It is not comparable. Orange, California distinguishes it from other cities called Orange in other US states but there is no other city/town called Orange in California. Similarly, Orange County, California distinguishes it from other counties in other US states called Orange but there is only one such county in California. States are the highest level descriptor sufficient to disambiguate cities in other states with the same name but we don't add state after the name of the state. Why should we add hromada in these instances? We add county to distinguish counties from cities with the same name but we do not also add city to the article title for the city. Indeed, why should we add raion or oblast to part of an article title here, unless it is a necessary part of the disambiguation in a way similar to county. In each case, we see that concision is being applied to disambigation of titles over unnecessary precision. So, my original question stands. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You don't add state to the end of the states simply because most of them are not named after their capitals/centers (meaning that nobody will confuse the state with its capital), while most Ukrainian subdivisions are (Zhytomyr is a city, while Zhytomyr Oblast is a division; Berdychiv is a city, while Berdychiv Raion is a division; Andrushivka is a city, while Andrushivka urban hromada is a division).

"We add county to distinguish counties from cities with the same name" - just like we add hromada to distinguish hromada from the city (or, in this case, an urban-type settlement and a village). Shwabb1 (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

What I said was: Indeed, why should we add raion or oblast to part of an article title here, unless it is a necessary part of the disambiguation ... [emphasis added]. For the article title Berdychiv Raion, raion is a necessary part of the disambiguation to distinguish it from Berdychiv, the city. For Romanivka, Berdychiv Raion, raion is unnecessary in the same way that state is unnecessary detail/precision in Orange, California. While we add county to distinguish Orange County, California from the city, Orange, California, this is not the same as how we might use hromada in the examples - eg Hrabove, Shatsk hromada. There is no separate article for Hrabove, Shatsk that requires hromada for disambiguation. We should also appreciate that this thread is about disambiguating relatively obscure localities, where the primary target for Hrabove is a disambiguation page. While the guidance at WP:AT is to prefer concision over precision unnecessary to achieve disambiguation, it is perfectly reasonable to provide supplementary detail on a disambiguation page. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're trying to say now, but I still disagree - "Romanivka, Berdychiv" implies that Romanivka is a neighborhood of the city of Berdychiv. This is because the word "Berdychiv" on its own is generally interpreted as a noun (Бердичів), but in the phrase Berdychiv Raion, "Berdychiv" acts as an adjective (Бердичівський). English does not differentiate between the noun form and the adjective form, it all depends on whether the word oblast/raion/hromada is present. Shwabb1 (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

In the noun phrase Berdychiv Raion, Berdychiv is a proper noun and it modifies the common noun raion. In this case, where it acts like an adjective, it is called an attributive noun. However, Berdychiv as the proper noun for the raion can also be used to refer to the raion without being followed by the word raion. As an example, you will see many examples where Donetsk or Luhansk are used is sources to refer to the oblasts without being followed by the word oblast. An assertion that in English, a name like Berdychiv as a reference to the raion must be followed by the word raion (eg Berdychiv Raion) or, that Berdychiv alone only refers to the city would be incorrect. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any exact statistics on this, but I find it much more common for oblasts and raions to be referred to as what they are, not as their centers (on both the news and English Wikipedia). Visit any article on an oblast or a raion, and you will notice that. Shwabb1 (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, Wiki is not a source that we would use to establish such a thing. To the second, I have conducted a search of the explicit string (ie in quote makes) "fighting in Donetsk" on google news since the start of 2022 here with 3,290 results and for "fighting in Donetsk Oblast" here with only 10 results. Since there has been no fighting in the city since then, all reports for "fighting in Donetsk" are for fighting in the oblast generally and not the city. The premise is quite exploded (paraphrasing Oscar Wilde). Cinderella157 (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Huh, I guess that the news I'm reading happen to more commonly use Donetsk Oblast over Donetsk.

Either way, my point about the possible confusion with the city if hromada/raion/oblast is not added still stands. I can already imagine a situation: someone stumbles upon an article named "Romanivka, Berdychiv," wants to find out more about the administrative division that the city is located in, searches for "Berdychiv," and gets confused upon finding out that it is a city too. Adding one extra word to the title is not a big sacrifice for avoiding possible confusion. Shwabb1 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The argument is flawed because it is based on the premise that the hypothetical person doesn't even read the first and only line of the lead for the article on Romanivka in Berdychiv and that they don't follow the link therein. As I said below: Localities within the state of Washington are disambiguated by adding Washington after a comma, not Washington (state) and localities within the state a New York are similarly disambiguated. One should also consider WP:RECOGNIZABILITY: The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. With no other choice for a place called Romanivka associated with somewhere called Berdychiv, would such a person find this place with it using the title Romanivka, Berdychiv. This is the acid test that should be applied. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Romanivka, Berdychiv is recognizable enough, but it is not precise enough. As I said multiple times before, this title can and will cause confusion, and US states are in a completely different situation due to their names not being derived from their centers. And if we want to bring familiarity into this, asking the question "Will people from Romanivka or a nearby village recognize the English title (assuming that they have a decent level of English)?" - I would say that they will only recognize it from context but will be confused, as uk: Бердичів is a separate city while uk: Бердичівський район is the subdivision. Romanivka, Berdychiv Raion is the optimal option - it is not much longer than Romanivka, Berdychiv and leaves no room for confusion. Even if you prefer the name Romanivka, Berdychiv, when you type it in the Wikipedia search bar, it will suggest the article Romanivka, Berdychiv Raion.

And I did notice that we have drifted from the original topic, which was to resolve the issue of how to disambiguate between settlements that are in the same raion but in different hromadas. Shwabb1 (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The case of a location in the state of New York is directly equivalent to this situation. The case of a location in the state of Washington is pertinent because Washington most commonly refers to the city which is the capital of the US (not the state). It would arguably create the same type of confusion asserted to exist for the article title, Romanivka, Berdychiv. The search bar presently suggests Romanivka, Berdychiv Raion because that is how the article is presently named. If Romanivka, Berdychiv is sufficiently recognisable and precise to get a person to the article about Romanivka in Berdychiv (as opposed to the one in Mykolaiv), then it serves its purpose quite adequately. The question we are discussing in this sub thread is whether we should be adding descriptions (eg raion) to titles as a matter of course or only where necessary for disambiguation. While we may be using a simpler example, it is still in the context of resolving how to disambiguate between settlements that are in the same raion but in different hromadas. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The case of a location in the state of New York is directly equivalent to this situation

Not quite. It would be equivalent if the state was named New York State and the city was named New York, but both are named New York. In our case, Berdychiv Raion is rarely called Berdychiv.

I agree that Romanivka, Berdychiv is sufficiently recognisable, but it is not precise enough, as it could cause confusion. Shwabb1 (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

That's fully correct Cinderella. The issue in disamibiguating this way isn't that it's improper English, it's that in the context of a title it's ambiguous; The title could refer both to the city or to the administrative unit named after the city. This does not meet WP:PRECISION. Hecseur (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

There would appear to be some misconception of precision as a WP:CRITERIA which states: Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See Precision and disambiguation, below) [note the link]. WP:PRECISION is a link to the section on Precision and disambiguation, which are intricately related to each other. According to WP:PRECISION we should use the title Romanivka except that there are articles for other places called "Romanivka" apart from the one in Berdychiv. Hence we must disambiguate the title per WP:TITLEDAB: It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary [emphasis added]. Hence, concision is preferred over unnecessary precision to distinguish actual articles. There is only one article for "Romanivka" in Berdychiv. Romanivka, Berdychiv is sufficient precision to distinguish it from articles for other places called "Romanivka". It is immaterial to the guidance in respect to WP:PRECISION that [t]he title could [hypothetically] refer both to the city or to the administrative unit named after the city. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Your arguement hinges on interpreting "use only as much additional detail as necessary" such that the distinction in the article title between the city and the administrative unit is unnecessary. WP:PRECISION clearly states "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." The topical scope of this article is "a settlement called Romanivka in Berdychiv Raion". Using a scope such as "a settlement called Romanivka in Berdychiv" would be ambiguous as it can be incorrectly interpreted as "a settlement called Romanivka in the city of Berdychiv". Hecseur (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The shortcut WP:PRECISION is a link to the section Precision and disambiguation - not to the subsection within titled Precision. When linking to WP:PRECISION, the section Precision and disambiguation must be considered as a whole - as I have done. An argument that focusses on one part rather than the section as a whole is flawed. Localities within the state of Washington are disambiguated by adding Washington after a comma, not Washington (state) and localities within the state a New York are similarly disambiguated. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

My mistake regarding WP:PRECISION. It seems that WP:OVERPRECISION is supposed to redirect specifically to that section but currently does not, I will remedy this following my reply. My arguement was evidently focused on how the precision section defines the meaning of what is "necessary" as is later mentioned in the following disambiguation section; I don't comprehend how that "fails to consider [the section] as a whole". Your example of US localities is irrelevant; As per WP:USPLACE, sticking the word state every time a state is mentioned would be "contrary to general American usage". If the bulk of general use in English dropped the word "Raion" when referring to disambiguated localities then this could be a valid arguement. In the case of English-language coverage being lacking or nonexistent this could also be a valid arguement if it was the accepted norm in Ukrainian to drop "район" when disambiguating. However, neither of these is the case, and current consensus here reaffirms this.

As per WP:PLACEDAB: "Places are often disambiguated by the country in which they lie. If using the country name would still lead to ambiguity, use the name of a smaller administrative division (such as a state or province) instead." In the general use case when mentioning Ukrainian administrative subdivisions, the subdivision's name will be followed by the subdivision's type; Oblast, raion, or hromada (with some notable in-sentence use exceptions in English such as Donetsk). This is the accepted disambiguation structure I've seen throughout both official sources and vernacular use.

More importantly though, an additional remark for the Romanivka example: Without the subdivision type the title comes to the absurd situation where it can misdirect you both to both the city of Berdychiv AND to Berdychiv urban hromada instead of the intended Berdychiv Raion. This is not an "efficient" or "concise" method, this would all be nonstandard, very clearly ambiguous, and very confusing. Hecseur (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

As I have stated before, The link from precision at WP:CRITERIA links to the section Precision and disambiguation. The intent, therefore, is that the section should be considered as a whole in respect to the issue of precision, not just that sub-section on precision. The examples of Washington and New York are relevant because they are directly comparable to the situation being argued. It is not a case of sticking the word state every time a state is mentioned. It is the case that we do not add the word state. Similarly, nor should we add oblast (or raion) in a comparable situation. We should also recognise that this is EN Wiki not US Wiki but that is another issue. Allegorical evidence is little more than unsubstantiated personal opinion.

The assertion is that an oblast is consistently referred to with oblast as part of the noun phrase (and similar) in Ukrainian, because there aren't enough examples in English and that Donetsk is a notable exception. See here and here for another case that is quite exploded. At some point, these exception won't be all that notable. It is just a case of being clever enough to come up with appropriate search strings that can only refer to the oblast as a whole.

To the third para, my comment above already addresses this. More specifically, the title does not direct (or link) anyone anywhere. The links in the lead and the infobox do this. There is nothing ambiguous, and very confusing about this unless the links in the lead or infobox are inaccutate. There is no actual evidence that this would all be nonstandard English. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how any of this properly addresses my arguements. I am withdrawing myself from this discussion. Feel free to submit an RfC if you would like to change established disambiguation consensus regarding this. Hecseur (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

See here and here for another case that is quite exploded.

I do want to note - 6 of the 11 sources found for "fighting in Luhansk" include fighting in Luhansk Oblast, fighting in Luhansk region, and fighting in Luhansk and Donetsk/Kharkiv Oblasts. Only 5 out of the 11 sources referred to Luhansk Oblast simply as Luhansk. Shwabb1 (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The first search string "fighting in Luhansk" does not exclude "fighting in Luhansk oblast", the second search string. The premise addressed is that a reference to the region is consistently followed by oblast (etc) and a reference without this refers to a city. The evidence does not support the premise. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Zaporizhzhia is another (see here and [4]). Cinderella157 (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

This one could be influenced by the fact that even in Ukrainian, Zaporizhzhia Oblast is often called Zaporizhzhia, as the city's name comes from the historical region. Shwabb1 (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts about this: There was previously discussion on raion disambiguation here where I raised the point that disamibiguation solely by non-prevailing subdivisions is not going to be useful to the average reader when such subdivisions don't have adequate coverage to inform the reader. That arguement then was regarding disambiguation by raions; it even more acutely applies here, where instead of 2 line stubs there is ZERO information on nearly ALL hromadas on Wikipedia. If any settlements are disambiguated by hromada they will need to include all subdivisions required to make the title unambiguous:

• If all settlements by this name are found in the same raion, disambiguate only by hromada.
• If multiple settlements by this name are in the same raion and all settlements by this name are found in the same oblast, disambiguate by hromada and raion.
• If multiple settlements by this name are in the same raion and some settlements by this name are found in a different oblast, disambiguate by hromada and oblast.
• If multiple settlements by this name are in the same raion and some settlements by this name are found both in the same oblast and a different oblast, disambiguate by hromada, raion and oblast.

I completely agree with removing the hromada type when disambiguating as it's more WP:CONCISE. The name of the hromada is sufficient for disambiguation without specifying what type of hromada it is in the disambiguated article title.

For the Hrabove examples:

• Hrabove, Serekhovychi rural hromada, Volyn Oblast → Hrabove, Serekhovychi hromada, Volyn Oblast
• Hrabove, Shatsk settlement hromada, Kovel Raion, Volyn Oblast → Hrabove, Shatsk hromada, Volyn Oblast

In this specific case disambiguation by oblast is also necessary due to villages called Hrabove found in Donetsk and Odesa oblasts. Hecseur (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal, seems reasonable. Shwabb1 (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Should we make an RFC to officially decide on some of these changes? HappyWith (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Odesa/Odessa

I always thought the double-S version of this city's name came from its Greek version, viz. Οδησσός. At the least (1) I was unaware what the Russian spelling was, (2) I spell it with two Ss following the Greek example, not out of Russophilism, & (3) how Russian spells its proper nouns has less influence on English spelling than might otherwise be suspected: witness variant spellings for the novelist Dostoyevsky, Dostoevsky, Dostoevski, etc. -- llywrch (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It came to English from Russian. Одесса, Odessa, is Russian, not Greek (romanization of the Greek name of the Bulgarian city would be Odēssos or Odissos, I believe). I don’t know whether the Russian spelling has a double S only from its Greek etymology and strict transliteration, or retained it for some other quirk of spelling or pronunciation, but it doesn’t matter. The name of this city in Ukraine originates in Russian: Catherine II and her advisors were only inspired by the Odessos of antiquity, which we now know had been located at Varna, Bulgaria. Like most Russian settlements “founded” after annexation from the Crimean Khanate, the fortress there already had a Crimean Tatar name, Hacıbey, and was given a Greekish name to promote the myths of Russia as the eternal Third Rome and southern Ukraine as terra nullius, and to help overlook the ethnic cleansing of the Crimean Tatars.

Now we use the spelling from native Ukrainian instead of colonial Russian. No one is spelling Ukrainian names some way to show respect for self-determination of the Ancient Greeks.

Those Dosto--- spellings are all examples of transliteration directly from the Russian name Достоевский. The first may be according to the BGN/PCGN system with the -iy ending simplified, the second follows the widely used modified Library of Congress system which conventionally simplifies -iĭ to -y, and the third has the Polish-looking -ski rendering of -ский which is rare. Systematic spellings with simplified endings are most commonly used.[5] Since he was Russian, we don’t romanize his name from Ukrainian or Ancient Greek.  —Michael Z. 20:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Odessa took its name from the Greek colony of Odessos, according to Patricia Herlihy the name was changed to the feminine version at the special request of Empress Catherine, and one of the reasons for choosing the name was to attract Greek merchants. Your hunch that the double S comes from an ancient Greek name is correct as far as it goes. Marcelus (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Official Crimean Tatar names

I've been doing some cleanup on articles for raions of Crimea that have been officially renamed to their indigenous Crimean Tatar names (ex: Lenine Raion, Kirovske Raion, Krasnohvardiiske Raion), and I've run into a bit of a quandary. A lot of these articles have been edited to add their official Ukrainian names as alternative names, spelled according to the native Crimean Tatar orthography (eg: "Yedi Quyu Raion", "Qurman Raion"), but there isn't anything at UAPLACE that specifies this - going by what's here, we would instead call it "Yedy-Kuiu Raion", after the national transliteration of the Ukrainian name. That doesn't really seem right to me, though - it's going through two layers of clunky transliteration for a name that was originally in the Latin alphabet anyway. I don't know what spelling system English-language sources generally use for the alternative names of these mostly very obscure settlements and districts. This also all applies for the settlements themselves. Do any editors here have thoughts on what to do for these? HappyWith (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

As these are Ukrainian official place names, the official names are in both the state language, Ukrainian (spelled in Cyrillic), and the Indigenous language, Crimean Tatar (with a Latin Turkic alphabet in the process of being implemented). So both should appear under official and/or native name. Where the Ukrainian Cyrillic appears, it should be romanized as usual in parentheses. Remains to be seen which Latin-alphabet version will become most used in English sources, but there’s a good argument for the Turkic version because it is native to these names.

The linked articles look good at first glance.

Under Russian occupation the Cyrillic alphabet for Crimean Tatar is probably imposed, but the Crimean Tatar names are probably not allowed, so I don’t know what to do with that. Does anyone see a reason to include it too?  —Michael Z. 04:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we should use the Crimean Tatar latin when rather than a translit of uki (per WP:DONTUSEENGLISH) unless there is an established english spelling but i doubt there will be many cases of that.

Crimean Tatar names should always be included in latin simply because we're going to have to translit to it anyways when using the cyrillic. I don't really see a good reason to mandate inclusion or exclusion of Tatar cyrillic though—blindlynx 17:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Urban-type settlements

Urban-type settlements were abolished recently, being replaced by rural settlements (selyshches). It is to note that the councils of pre-2024 rural settlements are village councils while the councils of former urban-type settlements are settlement councils - meaning that if a rural settlement is a center of a hromada, the hromada could be either rural or settlement. See more info on Talk:Urban-type settlements in Ukraine. Shwabb1 (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Spelling of Kyiv / Kiev for events during the Ukrainian People's Republic / Ukrainian State

At the risk of opening a can of worms, do we consider it suitable to spell the name of the administrative centre of the Ukrainian People's Republic (1917–1921) and Ukrainian State (1918) as Kyiv? I've been writing a bit about the 1917–1921 period in Ukraine (see User:Nederlandse Leeuw/1918), and I'm not sure what to call it. I've seen some inconsistent spelling in other enwiki articles on the period as well, and I do not think it's a good idea to change everything unilaterally. So far, I've just pragmatically used "Kiev (modern Kyiv)" as a workaround for texts I've written myself, so as not to upset anyone.

I've got three arguments in favour of Kyiv:

1. The second rule of thumb of WP:KYIV, From 24 August 1991 (Ukrainian independence), Kyiv is likely to be appropriate, but proceed with caution., suggests that the name's spelling as "Kyiv is likely to be appropriate" in a time when Ukraine is an independent state;
2. the official UPR (Central Rada and Directorate) and Ukr State (Hetmanate) documents were (almost always) written in Ukrainian and usually issued with Київ (Kyiv) as the identified place of issuance / publication (see all pages in UkWikisource Категорія:Офіційні документи України 1917-1920); and
3. the fact that the Ukrainian People's Republic (UPR) enjoyed significant but not universal international recognition;

Therefore, would it be appropriate for us to spell the city's name as 'Kyiv' in reference to events in (part of) this 1917–1921 period? I think the answer is 'Yes', but I'd like some input before making changes, given the well-known controversies over the name's spelling, and because the post-24 August 1991 situation is not completely the same as the 1917–1921 situation(s).

However, there are some possible counter-arguments to be considered. The first rule of thumb of WP:KYIV probably does not apply to the 1917–1921 period, because unlike the October 1995 Resolution of the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology No. 5, or the 1996 Constitution of Ukraine Article 20 (which explicitly stipulates that Столицею України є місто Київ.; [The] capital of Ukraine [is the] city of Kyiv.), I have not been able to find such an explicit stipulation in official UPR, Central Rada, Directorate, Ukr State, Hetmanate etc. documents that Kyiv was to be considered the country's capital. E.g. uk:Київ#Українська революція states 20 листопада 1917 року вона III Універсалом проголосила Українську Народну Республіку, а Київ — її столицею. On 20 November 1917, it [the Central Rada] proclaimed [the] Ukrainian People's Republic by [the] Third Universal, and Kyiv [as] her capital., but the text does not mention 'Kyiv' except in У Киіві 7 листопаду (ноября) 1917 року. ([published] in Kyiv on 7 November (November) in [the] year 1917.)

Similarly, the Четвертий Універсал Української Центральної Ради (The Fourth Universal of the Ukrainian Central Rada) of 22 January 1918, which is the UPR's declaration of independence from Russia, makes no special mention of Kyiv, except as the place of publication: Київ, друкарня Р. К. Лубковського (Kyiv, R. K. Lubkovsky printing house). It seems that state officials at the time did not consider it important to explicitly define the capital; noting where a document was published seemed sufficient context to them to indicate where the state institutions of Ukraine were located / resided / operated. (This makes Ukraine no different from most former and current countries in the world; explicitly defining your capital or seat of government is a relatively modern phenomenon, rarely seen before 1900).

There might be a legal hiatus for the Ukrainian State (29 April – 14 December 1918), because it never received as much international recognition as the UPR, as it was essentially a German protectorate (established by the German-backed Hetman Coup in violation of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (Ukraine–Central Powers)). This may partially undermine the 3rd argument, even though most foreign states continued to recognise the UPR (Central Rada / Directorate).

The first time I see any stipulation in an official document of Ukraine in Ukrainian stipulating its capital is in, perhaps somewhat ironically, the 1937 Constitution of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Стаття 145. Столицею Української Радянської Соціалістичної Республіки є місто Київ.; Article 145. [The] capital of [the] Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic [is the] city of Kyiv. (Evidently, the 1996 Constitution article 20 is an amendment of this 1937 Constitution article 145, given the very similar phrasing). But obviously Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union at the time, and thus not an independent state, so neither rule of thumb seems to apply to Soviet Ukraine.

Therefore, only the second rule of thumb, the independence requirement, might apply to (part of) the 1917–1921 period. Similarly to the second rule of thumb, I think we should proceed with caution. If we do agree the spelling Kyiv is likely to be appropriate, then we should probably set the boundary from 22 January 1918 (declaration of independence by the Fourth Universal) until the Treaty of Riga of 18 March 1921, which legally and practically ended the UPR's existence (we don't have to count the Government of the Ukrainian People's Republic in exile).

I do not feel too strongly about this issue, and I hope we can keep this friendly and amicable. There's already a war on; we don't need another editwar over this as well, so let's see if we can come to a suitable agreement beforehand. If it's better to just keep it like "Kiev (modern Kyiv)" for now, that's also fine with me. NLeeuw (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That is an impressive amount of research for an issue you don't feel strongly about! The point of the 1991 date, as far as I'm aware, is not just there being "An independent Ukranian state" but specifically there being "The modern independent Ukranian state"; The same state that has mandated the English names of Ukrainian cities should be systematically transcribed from Ukranian rather than Russian. The Ukrainian People's Republic and Ukrainian State are unambigously historical topics, these states are over 100 years old(!) For unambiguously historical topics the consensus is to continue using "Kiev", and that consensus will remain until a new RfC supersedes it. (Hopefully soon; There are more than enough silly conventions on Wikipedia without having to call every major Ukranian city 2 different names depending on time period) Hecseur (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that this would just end up being more complicated than it's worth unfortunately. Especially given how messy the current use russian for historic system is.

That said google scholar suggests 'Kyivan' is roughly used as much as 'Keivan' in the last year or two [6] [7]

It's also worth noting that these discussions are never just about Kyiv and end up being applied to most Ukrainian cities —blindlynx 13:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If by "current system" you mean the moratorium on Kyiv usage, you're not alone. It just doesn't make sense.

Also nowhere here it is stated that we have moratorium on Odesa or Kharkiv usage but still somehow I am having troubles changing these cities' names to the proper Ukrainian spellings as well. This is just ridiculous. Kyiv citizen (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I could not agree more about the need to revisit the aforementioned RfC. I am a relatively new member of the community, and just noticed this particular thread. Hecseur please jump in the discussion thread right below this one if you feel like it. The current moratorium on pre-1991 Kyiv usage doesn't solve anything and just introduces more confusion and inconsistencies in articles. Kyiv citizen (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Historical contexts for other cases

From my read, the historical contexts rule of thumb was only specifically established for Kyiv/Kiev. However I'm assuming this would generally apply to other cases where the name has historically varied e.g. Odesa/Odessa. But has there been much discussion over this? What about on cases which have historically received a lot less attention e.g. Kharkiv or Luhansk? Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe the consensus is to use Ukrainian spellings for places in Ukraine as is the case with other countries e.g. Poland. Let's not reinvent a bicycle here. This is the official convention: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places) and it states The names of cities should be transliterated into Latin letters with the Ukrainian national system.

The only exception I could find is Chernobyl. Also Kyiv/Kiev is in this weird transitional phase at the moment with an arbitrary cut off year, and each change to Kyiv (even if it improves text readability and MOS:CONSISTENCY) hurts someone's feelings somehow, whereas changing to Kiev for the same reasons does not, which just feels weird and wrong.

Also as a side note. The names in question here never historically varied, they always remained the same: Odesa (but spelled Odessa using Russian naming convention), Kharkiv (but spelled Kharkov using Russian naming convention) and so on. And the convention is clearly Do not use transliterations derived from Russian names. Note I am not substituting Odesa with Khadzhibey (the original name of the settlement on the territory of modern days Odesa that got officially renamed) for example. There's big difference in a city's renaming which can be tied to a speicific date vs using consistent Ukrainian/Polish spellings which cannot be tied to any cutoff date/year. Kyiv citizen (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought this was obvious but I was not referring to articles on the modern subdivisions but to other articles. The guidance you provide only applies to articles on these subdivisions so it's irrelevant to what I'm referring to. It's also irrelevant to what your doing as I pointed out before so I don't know why you keep using it as justification. Nil Einne (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Internal consistency vs different periods

This is only loosely related to the above so I'll make a simple thread. It recently came up with Mikhail Bulgakov. Is there any guidance on whether MOS:CONSISTENT applies when there's a reference to different time periods? I see there was some earlier discussion on including it within the guidelines but this doesn't seem to have happened or alternatively it's now been removed. To keep things simple, I'll focus on Kyiv/Kiev. Also while I raised Bulgakov as an example I'm thinking generally so let's avoid the specifics. For example, imagine on an article on a person who was born in 1945 and died in 1980 so during a time period where Kiev is preferred. And there's no other reason why either might be preferred (e.g. a Ukrainian nationalist who hated Russia and the Russian language or a Russian nationalist who thought Ukraine should be totally Russian and the Ukrainian language should be replaced with Russian). It seems clear Kiev should be used for any reference to the city during this person's life. But what about references in this person's article to a museum was opened or some building was named after them in Kyiv in 2024? (Let's assume the building has no connection otherwise to the person.) Loosely related but I assume the categories at least should always be Kyiv and not Kiev? Likewise I guess there are some cases where it's clear there should be no consistency e.g. if we're not referring to the city directly so e.g. "supporters Dynamo Kyiv often call his name during matches" then we keep that name. So if the building or museum is named in part after the city then I'm assuming we would also keep that name. So we could have a construction like "the Kyiv Museum of Bulgakov in Kiev houses" assuming it's felt we should be consistent with the city name even over different time periods in one article. (Again I'm just using the Bulgakov as a hypothetical example, let's ignore the specifics of his case.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I wanted to thank you for raising this topic here and openning a bigger discussion about it!

I think your statement it's clear there should be no consistency is not so clear to me and generally is not true. Each editor/creator should be guided by a consistent style guide, independent of the medium he publishes his work in, but obviously including Wikipedia. And this inability to achieve the desired consistency in certain cases is the direct result of the imposed policy of using an arbitrary moratorium cutoff date for Kyiv. BTW, I do not support this moratorium and feel like this needs to be revisisted in the nearest future, since I find more and more evidence on Wikipedia about people not following this policy.

To be clear, I am against changing Kiev -> Kyiv in purely historically derived names, e.g. Kievan Rus', Kiev Pogroms, or Chicken Kiev. But once we refer to the city itself (even in biographies and even in biographies of dead people) and not to the city in the name of a historical event/period/state, we should be free to use either Kyiv or Kiev. The choice here should be guided solely by the style (not any nationalistic ideas and whatsnot), it should be consistent throughout the whole article, and we should have a policy about usage that enables this consistency. Kyiv citizen (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, if you want to be consistent within articles then per the guidance that will need to be Kiev in articles on historic figures etc. That part is clear per the previous consensus and it's not something that can reasonably be changed without another RfC which I doubt there is any appetite for. Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)