Jump to content

Portal talk:Ukraine/New article announcements

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I notice

I notice that User:AndriyK seems for some reason particularly nervous about Chernigov spelling, totally ignoring other un-orthodox spellings, like Czernichow or Lwow. See his edits on Vsevolod Svyatoslavich for corroboration. Cannot we finally reach some decision concerning Chernigov/Chernihiv row, something on the lines of Talk:Gdansk/Vote, which could be implemented accordingly? --Ghirlandajo 12:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatever decision we reach, it should not contradict the Wikipedia policies (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)). Encyclopædia Britannica uses "Chernihiv" as the title of the article and applies this name to all periods of the history, strating from the first mentioning of the city. Britannica refers to Chernigov or Cernigov as Russian names of the city. Therefore it has nothing to do with the traditional English spelling. Britannica uses traditional English spelling in the titles of the articles. Please compare to [Kiev].
I have a CD copy of Britannica 2004, and it uses Chernihiv in articles on modern politics and Ukrainian state and Chernigov in all the articles on pre-1917 history, usually specifying in blankets that it is (now Chernihiv, Ukraine). Anyway, Britannica is not an ultimate authority on Slavic subjects. It proclaims "Poor Lisa" one of the finest Russian novels, lists Ivan Krylov as a short-story writer, and derives Dolgorukov family from Yury Dolgoruky. Currently, your behaviour may be compared to that of an Irish fundamentalist who frantically and unilaterally changes Dublin to Baile Átha Cliath in every article he can find. This is a far cry from the Wikipedia Guidelines you pretend to defend. --Ghirlandajo 13:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I have to point out once more: in the article Chernihiv this name is applied to all periods of the history. Britannika can contain mistakes concerning some subtle points, but I hardly believe they do not know what are the correct English names of the geographic objects.--AndriyK 13:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The spelling "Chernigov" is indeed in use. We can mention this in article. But there is no reason to use the Russian name instead of the English one everywhere in the text.
Note that Chernihiv has been never renamed. (It's not like Tsaritsyn->Staligrad->Volgograd). Therefore there is no reason consider the spelling "Chernihiv" as anachronizm.
Conclussion: the accepted English spelling Chernihiv should be used everywhere in the Wikipedia articles.--AndriyK 13:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
It is funny to argue that the name Chernigov does not exist using querry http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9023842?query=Chernigov&ct=. But anyway there was no city named Chernihiv (or Chernigov) before 1918, there is no city officialy named Chernigov since 1991, the city had two names in between 1918. Thus, no Chernihivs for the pre-1918 events, no Chernigov for after-1991, discretion of the article's author inbetween. abakharev 14:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal voiced by Alex. It is similar to the naming policies accepted for Constantinople/Istanbul, to cite one example only. --Ghirlandajo 14:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Constantinople/Istanbul is not the appropriate example. It's like Tsaritsyn->Stalingrad->Volgograd, i.e. the city was renamed. Chernihiv has been never renamed. Please compare
Istanbul Turkish Istanbul , formerly Constantinople , ancient Byzantium [1]
and
Chernihiv Russian Chernigov, or Cernigov [2] Two quite different words: "formerly" and "Russian", aren't they?--AndriyK 11:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
You lie again. Istanbul has been known by its Greek name until the 20th century, and that name is still used in most article on pre-20th century history. And you lie that Chernigov never was renamed. In fact, it has never been known officially as Chernihiv until 1918, at least. And the town is still Russophone, if you've been there recently. Its inhabitants still call it Chernigov, whatever you Halychyans have to say. --Ghirlandajo 11:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Did somebody here claime that "the name Chernigov does not exist"? Please read carefully what I wrote.
If you have any prove that the city was renamed in 1918 or in 1991, please provide the references.--AndriyK 14:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
First you should provide a *single* pre-1918 English-language source alluding to the town as Chernihiv. Look at your favourite 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance. It is available online. --Ghirlandajo 14:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
We have to use modern English. "Pre-1918" English is irrelevant to Wikipedia.
As I have shown above Chernihiv is used in modern English for all periods of it's history.--AndriyK 11:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
It is worth noting that, like every subtle vandal, you start to pretend discussing your actions only after having vandalized today 60 pages or more. First rename several dozens of pages, and then start discussing your changes - very smart... Do you think other editors have the time to clean up the mess you keep introducing? --Ghirlandajo 11:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

A comment

Dear russian friends, you try to keep using russified names of cities in english. USSR was known in whole world as “Russia” and russian language was defacto state-language of USSR. Names of all soviet cities was spelled from Russian versions. Examples: Chernigov/Chernihiv; Kiev/Kyiv; Kishinev/Chişinău; Kanev/Kaniv; Vitebsk/Vitsebsk; Gomel/Homyel; Grodno/Hrodna (do you need more?). I have take a look at Talk pages of pages of these cities. Interesting picture – russian lobby... Now take a look at the Ukraine’s map published by US National Geographic Society. You will find Chernihiv there. --Gutsul 11:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Gutsul, I know that you were summoned here by AndriyK to advance his cause, but please respect the truth. Uke wiki may be a propaganda machine, just like the Polish wiki is. But in this English wiki, you have to respect its international status. Noone objects that Chernihiv is the spelling preferred by the Uke government now in power. But it doesn;t mean that every mention of the town in the historical articles imported from EB1911 should be changed to tally with the current spelling promoted by the Kievan regime. --Ghirlandajo 11:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, try not to use such phrases as Kievan regime it have nothing to do with our discussion. Ok? Today is 28.10.2005 and you tell me that EB1911 the only true source? In 1911 russian government was in power... And that is why we are having all these discussions. --Gutsul 15:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't say it is the only source. Perhaps you don't know that many articles here are imported from an 1911 edition, just like many Russian wikipedians pillage Brockhaus-Efron. I say it is foolish to change Chernigov in the imported articles to Chernihiv, as if the latter name would be more familiar to English readers. --Ghirlandajo 17:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

A parallel. Look at the city name Lviv. Under the Autro-Hungarian and Nazi regime it was Lemberg, under Poland Lwow, under Soviet Lvov, and now Lviv. Should we revert back to Lemberg or maybe Leopolis or any of the other forms? I hope not. The spelling is Lviv. To me it seems natural. The use of various spellings have political implications, but using the transliterations via other languages gives service to previous colonial status of Ukrainian cities. In that case German cities such as Gdansk should be known as Danzif and Kaliningrad as Konigsberg. Some people I guess find it hard to accept Ukrainian. Bandurist 04:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Usefulness of Correct Spelling

If one looks at the bigboards with driving directions in Ukraine, as a rule the latin names of cities are brought to correspondence with their Ukrainian spelling/prononciation (not Russian), also international travel agencies operating in Ukraine are officially encouraged to use the standard latin spellings derived from Ukrainian names of cities and places. Since the main purpose of Wikipedia is to provide the up-to-date information, it is much more important to ensure an English speaking traveller can easily look up the data from the names she reads on the big boards, maps, various signs in Ukraine instead of making her jump through the hoops searching for some old-style equivalents. We can hardly expect from an average foreigner to be aware of all sorts of transformations the naming policies underwent over the years. Please, please, please, let's not sacrifice user-friendliness and usability of Wikipedia in favor of undue academism. Let's use the most current and officially accepted names for the Ukrainian geography at least. --ashapochka 15:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for my rudeness, but who you are? Did you come also here from the Uke wiki to make this one remark and disappear? It is always suspicious when one-edit contributors start advising on proper English usage. No offence intended. --Ghirlandajo 17:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
My dear Sir, I beg you to accept my sincere apologies, for not introducing myself properly. You can think about my voice as that of a long-time en:Wikipedia user, who enjoys finding the desired information quickly. Therefore would you please consider my opinion as a sort of user's feedback. In addition, I believe, a reasonable comment has its value by itself even in case it is not backed up by the iron-clad authority of the contributor, isn't it? And yes, I am definitely from Ukraine and this is also why my comment in question is founded on the facts that should certainly be taken into account if we talk about making en:Wikipedia helpful to those users interested in modern Ukraine. Respectfully yours --ashapochka 19:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

New articles bot

Please support my request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#New articles bot. This will save all reporters much time.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the inspiration

Thanks for the inspiration: Portal:Colombia/New article announcements Best wishes, Travb (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

User:AlexNewArtBot - New Article Bot

Hi, I am in the trial runs of the User:AlexNewArtBot (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/AlexNewArtBot). The bot analyzes the new articles for a day and puts suspected Ukraine-related articles into User:AlexNewArtBot/UkraineSearchResult, the articles are suppose to be manually put into the portal page and/or removed if irrelevant.

The list of rules are in User:AlexNewArtBot/Ukraine the first pattern between the slashes on each line is the pattern that should be present in the article to trigger the rule (note the case insensitive match. The other patterns on the same line are suppose to inhibit the rule. E.g. for the Russian board /florida/ inhibits /petersburg/ rule as the article is most probably about the American city. If you are reasonably familiar with the regular expressions and know what you are doing, you can edit the rules straight away, but better ask me. In the Russian board I had to remove some rules: e.g. there are a lot of non-Russians named Vladimir and Chita, so I had to remove the names of the cities or have to much false positive. If you are interested why an article went to the list there is log on the User:AlexNewArtBot/UkraineLog explaining the rule that sent an article to the searchresults (if the log is cleared try to look into the history of the log).

That is all. Any suggestions are welcome. Alex Bakharev 03:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Very neat. Will make use of it. Thank you.--Riurik (discuss) 06:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Bot is a treasure. I am concerned, however, that now, with all articles being successfully fished out, both of primary importance (and relevance) and a secondary one, there will be so many posted daily that people won't be able to check as many of them as they were used to. I suggest an auxiliary Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements_2 board for the article which are, although warranted by the scope to be announced, have a lesser relevance to Ukraine and/or overall importance for the subject. The division will be totally arbitrary and whoever disagrees with his/her or anyone's article posted to the Board_2, can always move it to the main board. As an experiment, I will now create the board, move some bot uncovered articles there and link it to the main board's page. If we see that this is a bad idea, we can shut that down. --Irpen 00:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:KISS

Hello all, I was wondering if you guys would like to support WP:KISS as a policy/guideline. We need more wikipedians making templates, etc., easier, not harder to do. Where do I do this at? Can I announce this here? Odessaukrain 12:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Move

I propose for this page to be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine/New articles. It is more of a WikiProject page, and the move won't affect the portal main page much, since this page is listed under "WikiProjects and collaborations". All we have to do is change the link. — Alex(T|C|E) 09:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Support
  2. Support Shorter name is more convenient. Why not?--AndriyK 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. I don't really see the need to do this.. WikiProejct Russia doesn't have a new article page, which is linked to the Portal new article announcement page.. same with WikiProject Poland (which is just redirected to portal subpage).
    I would rather have the Ukrainian Portal be the main page for Ukraine (with announcement boards, ect.) than the WikiProject, which was created for organization, coordination, and assessment of Ukraine-related articles.. It really doesn't matter where it belongs, but it was created as part of the portal, so let it stay as part of portal. —dima/talk/ 19:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    The Portal WILL still be the main page to Ukraine. Note that on the main Portal page, the new article announcements is only a small bit of the whole portal. Therefore this move won't change much. Also, Russia isn't a featured portal, we're the ones setting the example. :-) — Alex(T|C|E) 22:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    In fact, the Russia portal is very much like a hybrid of a WikiProject and a portal. I might be missing out on something, but since when do portals have members? In my point of view, portals should be maintained by the WikiProject that's associated with them, and should provide information that can't be put in an article since it's constantly updated. (Like the main page, which doesn't really have members either.) Since this page is more like a notice board of articles that people should start working on, I feel it belongs more to the WikiProject itself. This is the only part that I feel should be moved to the WikiProject, except for the New article announcements 2, which can be taken care of later since it has a bot associated with it. — Alex(T|C|E) 04:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. What's problem with page names ? It's barely a page name. If it was like http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/E33358A2-9698-4c2d-B171-733F41B25DB1 - nobody will complain. Also I don't know how wiki works - but if this move will remove this page from a lot of people watchlists - then my Oppose become "Strongly Oppose". --TAG 19:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Moving a page, doesn't remove the page from users' watchlists. Just tried it.. —dima/talk/ 19:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Neutral
Other
  1. :( --Irpen 18:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Copy of Dynamo Kyiv move announcement

This is blatant disruption. Can anything be done to stop this? Ostap 03:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are a number of things. See this comment by Irpen, 2nd paragraph on the team's talk page. Action will be taken soon.--Riurik(discuss) 04:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • FC Dynamo Kyiv was moved to FC Dynamo Kiev as per the requested move, however the consensus was to keep it at FC Dynamo Kyiv.. —dima/talk/ 15:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Needs moved back no question. But I suggest give it a month or two before launching a second request. Otherwise it would have little chance. --Irpen 16:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • What's the point in waiting one/two months? The decision was groundless to begin with. So now another admin is needed to make the move back?--Riurik(discuss) 03:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
      • This needs to be dealt with immedeatly. We should bring this up on the talk page. See move of FC Arsenal Kyiv by the user's move proposal. Is the same going to happen with Kyiv Post and Kyiv-Mohyla Academy?? —dima/talk/ 18:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
        • There is absolutely no doubt that the names of organizations should not be altered in any way. I suggest an RfC whose conclusion should be binding for names like Kyiv-Post and football clubs. However, to make a good case, such RfC should be concentrated narrowly on the organization names. Whoever would try to use it as a vehicle to rename the city article, will derail it at once. Football clubs belong to the Kyiv-names. But please do not make any copy/paste moves. This would create a mess that would be even more difficult to undo. --Irpen 18:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
          • There is no question about it - the RfC needs to be narrowly defined to ensure the integrity of FC and organizational entries. The renaming of the city is a whole different story, and at least in the context/rules of wikipedia there is no basis for the move, and the RfC in question will not provide one.--Riurik(discuss) 22:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal and Dynamo moves: the wider issue of clubs and organization KyivStar, etc

What is the best way that this should be dealt with? Our options seem to be:

I guess we should just request another move, which almost certainly, will be followed but by someone coming over and saying that "Kiev" has wider usage. After some discussion I'm sure we can work it out (if admins don't start jumping to conclusions). If not, then RfC is the way to go. Regards, Bogdan що? 01:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Requesting another move is, in my opinion, worthless. I say RfC. Ostap 02:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Just found a couple of interesting discussions covering the subject Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Sports teams and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Naming_conventions_and_club_names. Please take a look—dima/talk/ 04:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the "so-called consensus" on Wikipedia:Naming conventions was added by one user... doesn't seem like consensus. to me.. On a side note, I wonder if FC Olimpik Donetsk will be moved to FC Olympic Donetsk and FC Lokomotiv Dvorichna to FC Locomotive Dvorichna... :)) —dima/talk/ 04:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
And the article FC Zirka Kirovohrad to FC Star Kirovohrad?--Ahonc (Talk) 13:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right. There was such obvious consensus in the opposition (12-2, to be exact), and yet the Administrator decided to perform the move. Maybe Ostap is correct; we should go straight to RfC. P.S. I don't think anyone cares about FC Lokomotiv Dvorichna :), regards Bogdan що? 04:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know.. I just brought it up as an example.. —dima/talk/ —Preceding comment was added at 05:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so let's go with the idea on the Football Project talk page of starting a discussion on the naming conventions, especially since it was a one-user thing.--Riurik(discuss) 04:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Centralized discussion is now located here Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Naming convention for sports teams.--Riurik(discuss) 05:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Awards for Ukraine DYK?

Project Oregon has four awards Wikipedia:WikiProject_Oregon/DYK#DYK_service_awards for those who have done DYK. Maybe this is something that we can adapt also, but maybe with lower numbers for the arwards (i.e. instead of 10 DYK for a silver, it would be 5 DYK) Odessaukrain (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Ukraine/New_article_announcements&oldid=1181137192"