Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine/Subdivisions

message: So Michael, what exactly should we do to retire that article? Vote for that, or contact sysops or something? Maybe a redirect? AlexPU 12:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retire Regions of Ukraine 

message: :::: I am not suggesting to rely on the news media completely. Although it is less prone to errors than google test, both of them mean anything only when the difference is very clear and sampling is statistically significant. And I completely agree that dictionaries, because they are made to serve as a reference the same way as respectable encyclopedias, are compiled with documentary intent, i.e. they document the current situation. I just checked what Oxford uses for article titles. Here is how articles are called in online Oxford Dictionary: Kiev, Lviv, OdeSSa, but CherkaSy, Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Luhansk (interestingly, if you check out Lugansk in Oxford it gives "Russian name for Luhansk and a redirect), Simferopol, Sebastopol (Sevastopol shows up simply as a "Russian and Ukrainian name for Sebastpol" and redirect), Chernihiv. Britannica calls articles in exactly the same way as oxford except for SeVastopol, to which Sebastopol redirects. Additionally, Britannica has an article for Ivano-Frankivsk which is missing in the Oxford Dictionary. I note that for those in the list that I checked in LexisNexis for the media usage, the names matched. 
::::It seems to me in view of that, that reference sources do reflect the current usage, when the usage is significant, and transliterate when the usage is small or non-existent. However, whether my conclusion on how they do it (watch first and transliterate only when they have to) is correct or not, if we accept the combined authority of Britannica, Oxford and a list of what LexisNexis calls major papers , we should move the articles according to these names. I am not saying we should do it right away. What I would do is to move two or three and see the reaction from other editors. For example Dnipropetrovsk (already moved), Kharkov to Kharkiv and, say, Luhans'k to Luhansk. But if you object, I would be happy to wait and give time for others to voice their opinions. What do you think? Irpen 05:41, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
::::: I'd rather wait a day or two, and solicit opinions a bit more widely, rather than risk a backlash.  Too sleepy right now, but tomorrow night I'll post a brief note at naming conventions, the subdivisions project, and anywhere else that makes sense.  We'll have to go through the move request process for Kharkiv, which is also a good way to get more opinions.  This will also affect oblasts, rivers, etc., which I haven't given any thought to.  —Michael Z. 2005-03-31 07:20 Z
::::::I agree with you. Let's wait and let others voice their opinions. It is important to emphasize to other editors that what's being proposed is not to rename 2 or 3 articles but the general rule how to to name the articles devoted to Ukrainian cities. For the article name, the name of the city that is most widely accepted in English language is to be used, at least in the cases when one version seems to be preferred in English by the wide margin. Establishing the preferred version includes checking what's being used in major media and respectable reference books, such as Britannica, Oxford Dictionary, Webster Dictionary. Google search results may also be taken into account but only if the winner of the Google test has a clear advantage (at least a factor of 2 or 3). In case the most widely used name is established, it is to be used for an article name irrespective of the origin of this version, be it a "correct" transliteration, "incorrect" transliteration, transliteration from the "right" or the "wrong" language, transliteration via correct or incorrect transliteration rule, or not a transliteration at all but the version used in English for other reasons. For the locations mentioned in English media too infrequently to establish the prevailing usage, especially those missing from the English reference sources, the transliteration from Ukrainian is to be used. Should it be the BGN/PCGN or other conversion table can be decided separately.
::::::As for oblasts, rivers, etc., lets deal with one issue at a time. If the proposed rule of the names of towns and cities is accepted, it would set a good precedent on dealing with similar issues. In my opinion, the proposed rule conforms best both the Wikipedia Policy and the common sense. The issue of what names to use in the texts of the articles is much more narrow, context specific and easier to solve because the name inside the article can be followed by an explanatory note. Irpen 21:44, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
::::::: Okay, sounds good.  Keep in mind that in case of a dispute, your thoughts about how to determine the most useful name would make convincing suggestions, but it may end up coming down to a vote.  I'm still of a mind that we should start with the National transliteration as a default, and use a different name if it's overwhelmingly popular; different approach but probably same results.  
::::::: The one possibility that bothers me is that (e.g.) some Ukrainian village appears in a hundred WWII history books by its Russian name, and has been completely unremarkable ever since.  Do you think that this would warrant its article title to be the historic Russian, or the modern official Ukrainian?  —Michael Z. 2005-04-6 18:46 Z
::::::I think that all the talk above about how the English usage matters in Wikipedia applies only to the names where there is a current English usage at some significant level. I agree with you that national transliteration should be a default name for an article if the English usage is non-existent or dismal. So, if there is a village like you suggested, and it was not being mentioned at all in major English language media in a recent time, it would mean that there is no established English name and we should use a transliteration. This would not prevent editors of the WW2 articles to use a historic Russian name in those articles.
::::::I guess, any oblast center would get dozens of hits in, say, a 24-months major media search. Most of them would be called by Ukrainian names through a simplified transliteration. The only exceptions I can think of right now are Kiev, Odessa, cities in Crimean peninsula. Maybe there are a couple of others but that would be it. Irpen 20:10, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
On the example of Dnipropetrovs'k versus Dnipropetrovsk, I want to say that the "vs'k" form seems quite inappropriate to me.  As a transliteration it may be more accurate, but as a word to an English reader it is bizarre.  The apostrophe presumably signifies something omitted, but that is not useful to an English speaker, and its presence is disruptive.  I'd go with the Dnipropetrovsk form, and generally avoid the "vs'k" and similar constructions elsewhere. (I know nothing of Slavic languages.) -R. S. Shaw 03:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More on Wikipedia naming conventions as applicable to Ukrainian names. Part 2

message: One more question: how common is the use of names like Poltavshchyna, Chernihivshchyna, etc., when referring to the oblasti (as opposed to historic regions)?  I guess this is more common for some than others.  Which oblasti have such forms?  I'd like to go through them systematically and make sure they all have the traditional names listed, and linked in cases where an article exists like Volhynia or Galicia (Eastern Europe).  —Michael Z. 2005-05-13 15:51 Z
:A very good point! I almost forgot about these names. Yes indeed, such names are common when referring to oblasti in Ukrainian. For every oblast capital (almost every), there is a -shchyna word for oblast'. Besides, although less commonly, such terms are sometimes used even in Russian language media in Ukraine, with the Russian variant version of the city: :Київщина/Киевщина, Харкiвщина/Харьковщина, etc. Going through the  template alphabetically, the  names used in Ukrainian are (I hope my memory serves me well, and I will write them in Ukrainian, being not an expert in transliteration): 
:Черкащина, Чернiгiвщина, maybe Чернiвеччина (not sure), Днiпропетровщина, Донечина (not sure), Iвано-Франкiвщина, Харкiвщина, Херсонщина, Хмельничина (not 100% sure),  Кiровоградщина, Львiвщина, Миколаївщина, Одещина, Полтавщина, Рiвенщина, Сумщина, Тернопiльщина, Вiнничина, Волинщина (less sure but I think that's right), Закарпаття (don't think there is a -shchyna form for this), Запорiжчина, Житомирщина. Maybe there is also a UA word "Кримщина", but maybe not and maybe some Crimeans may find it as offensive as some Ukrainophiles find "KIEV". If I made an error is some term, it will be corrected in WP sooner or later. Also, we might google-test to check them.
:In addition to Zakarpattia and Volhynia, there is another traditional area term "Slobozhanshchina" for Khar'kov area, but I already put in in that oblast article some time ago. Nothing else comes from the top of my head. Cheers, Irpen 18:24, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
:: Thanks.  I've added these to the table at Subdivisions of Ukraine#Oblasts.  I modified a couple slightly, based on a quick Google test and my intuition.  Please have a look for any mistakes.  —Michael Z. 2005-05-15 01:18 Z
::: I just looked at Sloboda Ukraine article. It seems that it is not correct to use Slobozhanshchina as just another term for Kharkiv Oblast. Slobozhanshchina is not the same thing as Kharkivshchyna  but it is still correct to use it fot the area. Another historic region that didn't come to my mind earlier is Bukovyna/Bukovina whose parts are now in Chernivtsi Oblast, Odessa Oblast, Moldavia and Romania. Irpen 17:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Запорiжчина is wrong! Запоріжжя is right! 95.69.152.59 (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional names 

message: I have a few old atlases which say that in fact in the 1950's two more oblasts existed in UkSSR. From an excellent collection of topographical maps here is a 1940 atlas, which on Ukraine's map (don't worry its the site that has the permission) clearly shows the Drogobych Oblast and the Moldavian ASSR, as well as the original 1939 border. I have a few late 1940's atlases which show the Izmail oblast as well (basically the part of Odessa oblast that was annexed from Bessarabia in 1940). So how should we present this quite important information? Kuban kazak 00:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Drogobych and Izmail Oblasts; Moldavian ASSR

message: Guys, I've took a look at the :Category:Towns in Ukraine and found its content highly questionnable. At least half of those "towns" are actually cities (like Brody, which is a raion center, or Nova Kakhovka). Actually, we ran out of towns in Soviet times, when centralized economy and propiska were established :). Officially, Ukraine only has "mista" (cities), "selyscha" and "sela". I doubt any misto can be regarded as "towns". So we should resort that category AlexPU 18:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Towns are urbinized settlement. It should be noted that aside urbanized settlement there also other settlement which are very very small populated places and usually part of a rural council (silrada). Also mista - cities have three subcategories. There are cities of special status, cities of regional significance, cities of district significance. Another populated places are villages - sela. Some villages are also the same rural councils, others constitute those councils in combination with other villages or settlement. It should be noted that aside of rural councils, there are city councils and town councils. And last but not least, there are districts within some cities, usually those are with special status or regional significance. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towns vs. cities 

message: I suggest to establish the structure pattern for pages of all big cities of Ukraine, based on the experience of Kiev (and other big cities of the world, after we use their experienve on Kiev page first). See the idea here. Ukrained 13:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure pattern for all big cities

message: Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Places WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team|Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team]] cooperation 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 15:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: The article introduces a new unit of Ukrainian subdivisions, metropolitan area, which we have not been using so far.
First, let me point out that the terminology "metropolitan area" is internationally recognized (see List of metropolitan areas by population and Largest European metropolitan areas), but each country is using a specific definition of a metropolitan area.
Second, across countries, the definition of metropolitan area is either given as an administrative unit, or as a statistical unit. 
Third, to the best of my knowledge, in Ukraine neither the lawmakers, nor the State Statistic Committee defines or uses the "metropolitan area" term.
Thus, how should we deal with the metropolitan areas for Ukraine, not breaking WP:NOR, or WP:V on one side, and yet presenting the phenomenon of metropolitan areas on the other?
(Related discussion: uk:Обговорення:Міські агломерації України) --MapLover 23:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question, hmm... I have no idea right now and will probably answer later... But I think that we should have the articles, although being in accorance with WP:NOR will be difficult. —dima/s-ko/ 00:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Kiev metropolitan area]]

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was th7e intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 20:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: I'm not a member of this particular WikiProject, but I think that it would be even better if it were expanded into all things Ukrainian, not just the country's subdivisions.  In short, I propose that we turn this into a WikiProject Ukraine.  Any thoughts? -- Aivazovsky 02:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While that is not a bad idea, there are currently very little active Ukrainian Wikipedia editors. Off the top of my head, I can count no more than 10 editors... I actually did think about this at one time, widening the scope of the project, but I currently see no real need, but it would be nice to have the WikiProject. I don't think it will hurt to just rename this project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine and just slowly transform it into the full-scale country project.. I suggest proposing this at the Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related Wikipedia notice board so those who do not watch this page can see the proposition there.. —dima/s-ko/ 02:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: When is it going to be started?? --Boguslav 17:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basicly anytime. We already have five users, and perhaps more will come... but let's just wait a little while longer 'till more users come and join. —dima/talk/ 17:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Dima, I like the idea of expansion of the existing project from its narrow scope, rather than reinventing the wheel. Would the members go for it? A nationwide project, rather than one for the geography alone, seems much better to me. Chris 23:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they will go for it. There was a proposal at the project's talk to transform it into a whole-country WikiProject some time ago, and no one besides me responded there, to which I agreed... And if we do that, we can move the current geo-wikiproject to a subpage, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine/Subdivisions, as there is some useful information on that page  —dima/talk/ 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And there are already six members besides you there, and five more here, let's make this happen! Chris 20:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Ukraine

message: ; Description : This project would aim to clean up and collect articles related to Ukraine, the largest country in Europe not to have its own project.
; Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
# Chris 22:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When is it going to be started?? --Boguslav 17:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basicly anytime. We already have five users, and perhaps more will come... but let's just wait a little while longer 'till more users come and join. —dima/talk/ 17:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Dima, I like the idea of expansion of the existing project from its narrow scope, rather than reinventing the wheel. Would the members go for it? A nationwide project, rather than one for the geography alone, seems much better to me. Chris 23:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they will go for it. There was a proposal at the project's talk to transform it into a whole-country WikiProject some time ago, and no one besides me responded there, to which I agreed... And if we do that, we can move the current geo-wikiproject to a subpage, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine/Subdivisions, as there is some useful information on that page  —dima/talk/ 23:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And there are already six members besides you there, and five more here, let's make this happen! Chris 20:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ukraine expansion discussion at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals]]

message: Is it reasonable to add uk:КОАТУУ codes in infoboxes ? This information is actively used and stable (i.e. not going to change often). It's available at ukrstat.kmu.gov.ua. It will allow to judge how complete information is in Wikipedia about Ukrainian administrative subdivision. Also it can serve as additional verifiability source. --TAG 12:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but it would be nice to translate the article first. I'll try to get started on that a bit later. — Alex(T|C|E) 01:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: KOATUU codes

message: I just wanted to let anyone who might be interested know that I'm in the middle of a major map project of Ukraine and its Oblasts. I'm creating an SVG map basically from scratch, since I cannot find any SVG map out there that is of a sufficient quality to satisfy my high level of expectation. I wanted to let people know about this in order to get feedback while I'm working on it, as well as to let people know that such a map is being made, and so not to replicate each others' work - if you are of a mind to create a high-quality SVG map of Ukraine before I finish, let me know and we can work together... 
To make this map, I'm using InkScape, and have plotted out a very precise grid based on the Longitude/Latitude system, incorporating the correct distortion into it so that the curvature of the earth is reflected in the grid system, which meant finding the distance between each degree of longitude for every degree of latitude on the area that the map will be covering, and then converting that distance given in kilometers to the number of pixels on the graphic table I'm creating (quite an undertaking, that!). The end result of this is a grid that contains 190 "squares" measuring one degree on each side of eather latitude or longitude, covering the region from 20 t 39 degrees East, and 43 to 53 degrees N. I'm currently in the process of going through and replicating every square within this grid directly from GoogleEarth - borrowing freely from existing maps for ready reference - but obtaining the correct data directly from satellite photos. This will take some time to do, since it is very painstaking, but the results of it will be highly accurate to an incredible degree. 
I am incorporating all major bodies of water - which means coastlines, major rivers, and major lakes. I also am incorporating international borders and the borders of each Ukrainian oblast. Because this is an SVG document, the result will be that it may be zoomed up to a very large degree (over 2000 times, at least), with almost no distortion, something the "dot matrix" pixelated JPG, Bitmap, and NPG formats cannot replicate - indeed, it is the Wikipedia policy to create maps using SVG, and to replace existing non-SVG maps with SVG ones. 
The end result of this will be a map that may be used to replace existing Oblast maps (with the corresponding oblast highlighted in whatever color is agreed on), as well as a general reference map that I hope will be very useful for anyone wishing to reference a geographical place in Ukrain, Moldova, or Romania (since all three of those countries will also be completely included in the map). 
Again, just putting it out there for now - I expect I'll complete this project within a month or two from now - I've already devoted about that much time to it already. One thing I'm debating: whether or not to keep the latitude/longitude grid. I could make two separate maps, one with the grid and one without, and upload both. It would be greatly useful for some applications, I suspect, to have that grid reference there on the map...  At any rate, any feedback or input is greatly appreciated. --Saukkomies talk  05:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Major map project

message: The above-referenced discussion regarding the proposed move of Oleg Sentsov to Oleh Sentsov has been relisted on October 30, 2016 for additional comments. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[Talk:Oleg Sentsov#Requested move 21 October 2016]]

message: The above-referenced exchange of views, initiated on March 1, 2017 as a continuation of the previous discussion regarding the same topic, may be of interest. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Oleg Sentsov#Is it time for another move discussion?]]