Talk:Zaporozhian Sich

message: The name of this place was Zaporizhian Sich, which is also the original title of this article. Here's some English language sources. Historians:     . Travel guides . Government/Library of Congress .
Please stop trying to Russify this name for no reason. Start an WP:RM if you must.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I get 56 hits on gbooks for "Zaporozhskaya Sech", a lot of them very outdated (from the 1930's and 1940's) or some kind of direct translations of Russian works, like Gogol's Dead Souls, or related to a person named Vera Zaporozhskaya, .  I get more than three times as many hits for the current title, "Zaporizhian Sich", .Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Actually "Zaporozhian" seems to be slightly more common than "Zaporizhian".Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This is wrong argument by Axxion. It does not matter who established the "Sech". It does not matter if it was "ruski" or not. Only one thing matters: the proper word in modern English per WP:COMMON NAME. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Zaporizhian Sich has much more hits in Google books then Zaporozhskaya Sech. So the much more common English name for the subject of this Wikipedia artickle is "Zaporizhian Sich" and Wikipedia articles should reflect common English usage. So stop moving this page Axxxion. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

text: And why does Axxxion keeps removing the Polish translation of the name of Zaporizhian Sich in the lead. Zaporizhian Sich is also part of the history of Poland. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

text: The WP:COMMONNAME in English (per Magocsi, the Ukrainian online Encyclopedia, et al) is "Zaporozhian Sich", "Zaporozhian cossacks", and so forth. I suspect that the reason for the confusion is that the actual geographic region it was located in was Zaporizhia. The cossacks, themselves, were referred to (and referred to themselves) as "Запорожці" ("Zaporozhtsi"). The difference is that Zaporozhian is adjectival, with the subject being "sich"; i.e., Zaporizhian Sich is an ungrammatical transliteration... So, yes, the article needs to be renamed and brought in line with the other articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just looking into this when you posted. The main source used, the Encyclopedia of Ukriane, uses the spellings you discuss here, so thanks for the explanation. I agree that the article should be moved, and usage within the article should be checked. (I did extensive work on the article and didn't even notice this, so obviously it needs to be checked by someone other than me!) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just wait to see whether there is consensus to rename the article (rather than go through an RM), and am happy to make the relevant changes. Mind you, I'd be grateful if someone else double-check. I'm wary of not noticing things, just as are you. I guess I just 'read' these articles about the cossacks without paying attention to the nomenclature because I know it in more than one language, and automatically know what is being referred to. After all, it's never actually come to my attention until Asimsky kindly pointed out the inconsistencies! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: The title Zapirizhian (with "i") looks silly because the text itself says "Zaporozhian" everywhere as well as all the other related articles with the same word  use "o" in their titles. Just looks incorrect. BTW, the article in Ukrainian is entitled Запорозька Січ, again with "o". I think we should change the title back to "o" --Asimsky (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The WP:COMMONNAME in English (per Magocsi, the Ukrainian online Encyclopedia, et al) is "Zaporozhian Sich", "Zaporozhian cossacks", and so forth. I suspect that the reason for the confusion is that the actual geographic region it was located in was Zaporizhia. The cossacks, themselves, were referred to (and referred to themselves) as "Запорожці" ("Zaporozhtsi"). The difference is that Zaporozhian is adjectival, with the subject being "sich"; i.e., Zaporizhian Sich is an ungrammatical transliteration... So, yes, the article needs to be renamed and brought in line with the other articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just looking into this when you posted. The main source used, the Encyclopedia of Ukriane, uses the spellings you discuss here, so thanks for the explanation. I agree that the article should be moved, and usage within the article should be checked. (I did extensive work on the article and didn't even notice this, so obviously it needs to be checked by someone other than me!) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just wait to see whether there is consensus to rename the article (rather than go through an RM), and am happy to make the relevant changes. Mind you, I'd be grateful if someone else double-check. I'm wary of not noticing things, just as are you. I guess I just 'read' these articles about the cossacks without paying attention to the nomenclature because I know it in more than one language, and automatically know what is being referred to. After all, it's never actually come to my attention until Asimsky kindly pointed out the inconsistencies! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Reprise

message: The paragraph "Destruction and aftermath" makes claims about prior attempts to relocate to America or Australia. There is no context in the single reference for this paragraph which supports this. Also while this is discussed as aftermath (and may refer to later, undated, events) the dissolution of the Sich was in 1775, only 5 years after Cook's exploration on eastern Australia, and 13 years before non-Aboriginal colonization. A reference is required to establish the basis and timeline for this claim. 124.168.209.227 (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph makes unreferenced assertions on relocation to America and Australia 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: using tineye, the flag is shown to first have appeared on wikipedia. Do we know the origin of the flag image? or is a fake flag? 172.99.147.181 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there is two flags? why? 172.99.147.181 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  flag first appeared on wikipedia