Talk:Sloviansk

message: This is Славянск, it is referenced Slavyansk in 1911 like that. Strange Donetsk Oblast does not list it.–Gnomz007(?) 05:14, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I can see that the city itself calls itself Slavyansk at its English site. But what's more important, is other modern encyclopedias: 
*Britannica: Slov'yansk, mentioning Russian  Slavyansk spelling in the article,
*Columbia Encyclopedia, also: Slovyansk
*Americana: has no article but mentions Slavyansk in Donetsk region article
In international media search there is 1 AP mention of Slaviansk and 1 BBC mention of Slovyansk. 
So, there is a slight advantage toward Slovyansk, and also it is transliteration from Ukrainian, an official language, though a minority language in the area. I would say we move it to Slovyansk, but I am not in particular rush. --Irpen 05:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
::I was ignorant of Ukrainian transliteration, I guess that is why I only saw old mentions, I guess Slovyansk would be good, a but a redirect must stay, and a mention too, since today keyword Slavyansk gives more google hits, Slovyansk gives more fresh and official records –Gnomz007(?) 05:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I entirely agree regarding the redirect and mention of RU name in the first line. We could also write a paragraph about the name history, similar to Kamyanets-Podilskyi (Kamyanets-Podolskiy) article. Also, the city is referred to as Slavyansk in WW2 related topics. I would just move it, no need to wait until someone creates a politcally motivated redirect from Slovyansk to Slavyansk thus complicating the move (which would thae require a vote and an admin action). --Irpen 05:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
::I support entirely, I only think about also placing a redirect for spelling Slov'yansk, those apostrophes seem to be used sometimes.–Gnomz007(?) 05:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Done. I will take care of all redirects in a minute. --Irpen 05:53, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm native citizen of SLAVYANSK... 95%!!! of locals are russian-native-speakers... so, it must be "Slavyansk". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeka911 (talk • contribs) 
:Sorry, Jeka, but this is not the strong argument. Residents often call their cities differently from WP. Otherwise, the Moscow article would have been called Moskva, Warsaw article as Warszawa, Munich as München, and so on. We have to comply with WP:NC and they call for Sloviansk. --Irpen 20:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UA/RU names as an article name

message: Nelja Igoriwna Schtepa ? disappeared?--Anidaat (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  what about the major 

message: Why do you spell Kiev the correct way, but Slavyansk the retarded way?
The root is SLAV, not slov --24.203.108.54 (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sloviansk is the correct way. SlOviansk is a city in Ukraine, and in Ukraine, the majority of the place names are named on Wikipedia by their respective names. Kiev and Odessa are exceptions to the rule since their names are more established in reliable English language sources compared to Kyiv and Odesa. Regardless, consensus above has established that this article will be titled Sloviansk rather than Slavyansk. § DDima 17:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  SLAVYANSK 

message: The section on the Siege of Sloviansk is way too long, and should be cut down, since it's covered in its own article in detail anyway. It would be nice to trim out the least essential info and consolidate things for a more big-picture view. HappyWith (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest it's always an issue with these kind of articles / situations, here you have a designated article on the Siege of Sloviansk, but the content there substantially differs in parts from that on the Sloviansk article itself. I would even say that the content on the Sloviansk article itself is stronger, better written. 
It's complicated when you have kind of a 'half-way house' situation - the Siege of Sloviansk article itself is much longer, but also lacking some important detail listed on the Sloviansk page. The first task here then, to my mind, would be to ensure that the Siege article contains all of the information. And then work out what to do with the Sloviansk article itself. The best options here would seem to be either reducing it to a brief paragraph, to direct people to the Siege of Sloviansk article, or leaving it as it is. There is a case to be made for either - on one hand, the Wikipedia reader should have the full story, and facts, in one encyclopedial article. On the other hand, in the vast majority of cases the reason that someone will come to the Sloviansk page will be due to war-related events, and do we want to get the reader to one article only to send them to another? There is also the fact that the Siege in general is embedded into the body of the article, so we have the Siege, and then the 'Aftermath of the siege', and on. It's a complicated situation, with no definitive answer, but in the first place I'd say the task is to work on the Siege of Sloviansk article itself, to make sure that has all the information. Then, we can build a consensus here on how we proceed with the Sloviansk page. Hope this is helpful! Luganchanka (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siege section too long