Talk:Podilsko–Vyhurivska line

message: Is there really a need for mentioning the Russian name? I can understand about the other lines (since they were built during the Soviet times), but this line is brand new. — Alex(U|C|E) 00:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, there is no real need.. I actually don't mind if there is only Ukrainian name or both.. so if you want to remove it, feel free.. —dima/talk/ 00:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So you want to break consistency for one line? How about the stations that were opened in post-Soviet times? (Articles about which were wrote solely by me) Do we also purge them? Please with respect to WP:POINT, Ukraine can choose to continue its linguistic genocide all it wants, however that does not change the fact that Kiev speaks Russian in its overwhelming majority. So the Russian stays. Reverting will only ruin our perceptions of each other.--Kuban Cossack 12:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kiev speaks Russian, so good for it. However Russian is not the official language of Ukraine and therefore this line never had an official Russian name. And quit attacking Ukraine, some people might find it offensive. — Alex(U|C|E) 05:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Russian does have a special status in the Ukrainian constitution, you are not going to omit it from new structures in Sevastopol or Lugansk or Kharkov are you? No, so why should Kiev be different, does the fact that KievArchUnion wrote their articles in Russian say anything? Does the fact that the renders of these new stations have Russian names say anything? Also attacking Ukraine? Where have I attacked it? However as offensive as you mind find putting in a language that all of Kiev speaks, (even though it breaks Ukrainian law, which strictly speaking is not applicable to wikipedia), I find that puny compared to the people, who driven by their in-superiority complexes, who wrote nothing (as of me writing this) to improve the articles, disrupt otAer peoples' work. Please wikipedia is not going to adjust to your personal tastes, irrespective of how strong you feel about this (and you did manage to pick one ridiculous point to be feeling strong about). Now I am going to restore the Russian name, if you want it to be removed start an official process, although really there are things in wikipedia on which time can be better spent on. --Kuban Cossack 13:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So you want to have double standards for Kiev???  --Kuban Cossack 03:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What part of "do not revert until consensus is reached" do you not understand? — Alex(U|C|E) 04:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  If you're going to keep reverting to your version (which has not been agreed upon), you will get blocked. It is pointless. There was consensus (divided by a line above), and then you came along and decided to change it against consensus. — Alex(U|C|E) 04:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Have a read of WP:POINT and removing text is bordering on WP:VAND. As for consensus version, on his talk page DDima has clearly stated, that his involvement is a simple case of being an observer not a participant in the dispute. --Kuban Cossack 14:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian name 

message: Removed. :-) Off-topic: is there any policy on transliterating Ukrainian? I've seen a few versions that look like Czech. I'll check on zakon.rada.gov.ua. — Alex(U|C|E) 06:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... WP:UKR says otherwise. I wonder why some people used the Czech-style alphabet. — Alex(U|C|E) 06:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some people just like to use the scholarly transliteration system and think it is closer to the original cyrillic version (and perhaps shorter too): like ж to ž not zh.. —dima/talk/ 17:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe WP:UKR needs to be updated with that...  — Alex(U|C|E) 03:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Translit

message: Find it there ,  Sorry for the quality of the latter, but that station will be there. Even Urbanrail recognises its right to existance  --Kuban Cossack 12:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be more accurate: http://archunion.com.ua/img/2007/05/s_05_001.jpg. Up to date as of last month. — Alex(U|C|E) 05:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for returning it, also Vokzalnaya II is described separately for now, as to the best of my knowledge there will not be a cross-platform transfer on it, thus it is necessary to have a separate article for the station.  --Kuban Cossack 12:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously the reason did not hang long enough for you to revert once again ... sigh. Revert warring out of such petty issues (removing a II from the article) that is just WP:LEW. --Kuban Cossack 03:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This can happen and there are several examples in post-Soviet space of it occuring, however they will be two separate stations, only cross-platform transfers should be described as one article. --Kuban Cossack 20:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is speculation. Let it remain de-linked for now, until we actually see concepts for the station. As far as I know, it could be called Vokzalna III, there will be three Vokzalna transfers, one from the fourth surface line on the right bank. — Alex(U|C|E) 20:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not speculation, unless of course you are saying that it will be the same 1960s platform with two branches coming off it (which I refuse to believe, as the orientation of the SBLs platform will be essentially at right angles to the PVL's one. In such conditions even a cross-platform transfer would require very tight bands of the tunnels. If you don't like Vokzalna II would Vokzalna (Podilsko-Voskresenska) suit you. You can retain in the tamplate as simply Vokzalna, I could not care less. --Kuban Cossack 20:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We're not starting the article yet, just leave it de-linked, we will discuss it when more information about the station floats up. — Alex(U|C|E) 20:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean de-liked, leave it as simply black text? And its never too late to start an article, in fact the quicker you let off this petty issue and leave it as you did not seem to mind for Lvivska Brama or Vyrlytsia the faster I will write that article (which will have a Вокзальная in the lead)--Kuban Cossack 20:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  It is easier settling the issue in one article and then writing a policy/guideline based on it. And yes, leave as black text, there is not enough information to start an article on it. — Alex(U|C|E) 20:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case why not ax the template to Glubochistkaya, as Pl. Pobedy's design is also planned?--Kuban Cossack 20:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you trying to start another dispute, but this time purposefully? — Alex(U|C|E) 20:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What dispute? The one that you began already qualifies as WP:LAME, I have no interests in disputes, I just want a reasoning that is not based on amateurish principles. --Kuban Cossack 20:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well, I don't see what your point is with Pl. Pobedy. — Alex(U|C|E) 20:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same as with Vokzalnaya 2. --Kuban Cossack 20:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I don't see the point with that either. — Alex(U|C|E) 20:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you do not see a future separate station on the PVL?--Kuban Cossack 20:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see why you decided to refer to it in Russian and highlighted it in bold. — Alex(U|C|E) 20:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the talk page I see no sin in reffering to anything in the name I choose, I highlighted in bold something that will appear in the future article that I might right (and the sooner you end this silly dispute the higher the change of might become a will).--Kuban Cossack 21:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  You are as much a participant of this dispute as I am, you have to end it too. — Alex(U|C|E) 21:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you just accepted an extra half a line it would not have begun, I think the majority of people who read this do not read it for the Ukrainian language or the Russian in the lead, but for the context of the article. --Kuban Cossack 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tatarka

message: The article is protected for one week. Please endeavor to find common ground in your dispute.If you are ready to resume editing before the week has elapsed, or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Let me contribute to the discussion by answering the initial questions:
# The Ukraine article states only one official language. Is this correct?
#::Yes. Ukrainian language is the only state language of Ukraine. The Constitution of Ukraine reads:
#::The state language of Ukraine is the Ukrainian language. The State ensures the comprehensive development and functioning of the Ukrainian language in all spheres of social life throughout the entire territory of Ukraine. In Ukraine, the free development, use and protection of Russian, and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine, is guaranteed. The State promotes the learning of languages of international communication. The use of languages in Ukraine is guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and is determined by law.
# What proportion of the population – in Kiev itself and in the entire country – speak Russian as their first language?
#::According to the latest census (2001), among Kiev residents, 2,111 thousand (82.2%) identified themselves as Ukrainians, 337 thousand (13.1%) - Russians, and 120 thousand (4.7%) - other nationalities. . Among Ukrainians, 85.2% named Ukrainian language as the native language, and 14.8% called Russian language as native. Among Russians, 95.9% listed Russian as native, and 3.9% - Ukrainian. . The numbers for Ukraine are essentially similar. ,
# Does the Kiev underground system provide alternative place/station names in Russian, like one would expect to find in Wales or Hong Kong, for instance?
#::No. Following the Ukrainian independence, Kiev City Administration (the metro is a municipal property) took steps to convert paper work, documentation, public records, etc. from bilingual (predominantly Russian) to Ukrainian. In the metro station signs, announcements, official maps have been exclusively in Ukrainian since early 1990s.
#::In the same time, while the usage of Russian language is diminishing among Kiev residents, in daily life many speak Russian or a mixture of Ukrainian and Russian.
#::Looking over internet, there are websites that feature Kiev metro in Russian language, with station names translated or transliterated into Russian. (A related question is: If Russian name of Ukrainian metro station is given in the English wikipedia, which Russian name should it be? For example, should it be Майдан Нэзалэжности , Майдан Независимости , or Площадь Независимости ? Should it be the most common name used by Russian residents of Kiev, or by Russians in Russia?). Also, there are websites describing Kiev metro in other languages, for example, in German. As well, there are likely to be publications and tourist guides in many languages that include a map or description of Kiev metro. In fact, as of now the article Kiev Metro is given in the wikipedia in 18 languages.
I'd like also to point out some misleading information in the above discussion.
#It was stated that Kiev Architectural Union "is state and official", and the fact that union's website is exclusively in Russian was used as an argument that Russian language is used by the city administration.  In reality, the union is a limited liability company (товариство з обмеженою відповідальністю) as it stated at the union website main page. It's official (in the sense that it's not illegal), however the union is not part of the city or the state.
#Lva Tolstoho station is named after famous Russian writer Leo Tolstoy, and inside the station its name on the wall is given in Russian. This is the only known exception of the station signs being exclusively in Ukrainian. The exception by itself is unlikely to validate the need to provide Russian names for all stations in the English wikipedia. --Novelbank 01:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Answers and corrections

message: Okay, after thinking about it for a while, here is my proposition (I will post it to MedCab when it gets going):
* All articles about historical places (such as cities, example Kiev, Lviv, Kharkiv should be named after their official names (Kyiv, Lviv, Kharkiv) and should include names in the lead-in in different languages that are well-known (See beginning of Kiev article for example)
* All articles about historically insignificant parts of the city (such as transportation systems) should be named after their Ukrainian names and should only include the Ukrainian translations of their names, regardless of location in Ukraine
I hope this proposition goes through. — Alex(U|C|E) 23:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed resolution 

message: I've fully protected the article for 2 weeks. Please work out the dispute here, on the talk page, in the interim. If you come to a consensus before the 2 weeks, let me know or go to WP:RFPP and the page can be unprotected early. MastCell Talk 22:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Hello, I'm responsible for the Chinese version of the Kiev Metro articles. When I checked the official site of Kiev Metro in the Prospects page they address the 4th to be "Подільсько-Вигурівська лінія" rather than "Подільсько-Воскресенська лінія". I know the phrase Воскресенська covered from other sources of map but I'm asking for an answer to relieve the confusion. thx -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official name of the 4th line? 

message: I think the page should be renamed to "Podilsko-Vygurivska" as in Ukrainian it is written "Подільсько-Виґурівська"  and it comes from "Виґурівщина". Thanks --Sir-nik (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Подільсько-Вигурівська лінія.--Юе Артеміс (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vygurivśka 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 03:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress