Talk:Kyiv Metro/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Map

Map should be updated like in uk:Київське метро Ilya K 13:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Good call. I've updated it :) -- mno 14:36, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Then future expansion plans also Ilya K 18:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

This requires a bit more tinkering. So hold on a bit :) -- mno 16:37, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Moving images to Wikimedia

Since both maps are PD I uploaded them to Wikimedia as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Kiew_Metro_MapStations_Ukr.gif and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:KievMetroPlannedExpansion.gif . I think we'd better replace the images currently in the article (both here and in ua-wiki) by their exact copies. I could not figure out how to do this when they have the same name in en-wiki and 'media. Should we just rename en-wiki images to some tmp names? I think then the article would automatically take the images from the 'media files. If this happends, we can delete the copies from en- and ua- wikis. Or there are better ways to do this? Cheers, --Irpen 18:43, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've done that before. I'll figure out how, and take care of it. —Michael Z. 2005-07-18 04:21 Z

Posted a request at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. —Michael Z. 2005-07-18 04:31 Z

Images in commons

On another note, I recently realized, that it is helpful either to watch one's own user talk page at commons or leave a note there should anyone want to contact you to use your en-wiki talk page. The reason is, that if whoever feels like the images contradicts the policy, they leave a very short-time notice at the commons talk page. Guys, don't forget to leave a note there to use your enwiki talk to warn about the problems with images you uploaded, or monitor that talk page too. Cheers, --Irpen 04:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lines

Have a look at how we wrote the Moscow Metro, take the example of the lines and have a go at doing it yourself, I will help out with technical difficulties, eg extensions and depots. Best of luck. Also update the map, try using [Urbanrail's]

Kuban kazak 16:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. This page has been left as it was for some months now, so it does need to be fixed relatively badly. :) I will do some work shortly to update images, etc. mno 12:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Left as it is? Are being rediculous? Check the history and compare the version that existed before I came with that after I came. :) What is true is that MUCH MUCH more needs to be done, for instance photographs of the stations. Actually I want to create a megaportal on all former USSR metros and if you want to give me a helping hand, please do.Kuban kazak 14:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You didn't understand me... :) I meant that the page was not updated since I made some changes to it the past summer and it's great that someone finally went in to work on it. I'll help as much as I can, for sure :) I can help with drawing diagrams if needed, for example. Also I don't mind emailing people to ask permission to use their photos. mno 15:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You say you can draw diagrams? How good? as good as here:

http://www.metroreklama.ru/bb/bb_map.php?LoadShema=s_0101.swf#shema or here: http://www.kommet.spb.ru/station/ or maybe this one here http://www.metro.ru/art/razrez/Kuban kazak 21:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the first two links, I can do. The last one (the 3d one of the platform) is beyond me, though. mno 21:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well have a go at Akademgorodok then, (in any case we can always improve it).Kuban kazak 21:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of first redrawing the map of Kiev, then using that as the base for adding in the future plans of the metro first. But I can also work on an actual station plan, that could be quite useful. The only question is (and I haven't actually looked yet), is there any place where I can get some plans from for it? mno 22:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Diagrams are excellent, ты технически понимаешь много о метро? Даже если нет то все равно приглашаю на форум метролюбитилей.

Here are some photo sites I have found:

Metrosoyuza

Urbanrail

Czech site

Unofficial Kiev Metro site

Official Kiev Metro site

-Kuban kazak 16:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Технически, только самыо генеральныое :) mno 12:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

А вот эта схема (http://www.archunion.com.ua/img/2005/10/s_10_054.jpg) мне нравится! Я видел её кусками, но по моему, официально, это будет не скоро, и ещё может поменятса. mno 12:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Таже схема только качество и детальность (плюс несколько изменений) http://www.metropoliten.kiev.ua/pict/maps/plan2020.gif Kuban kazak 17:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Вот именно ту схему я и хотел бы перересовать для WP. Чуть позже, только. mno 18:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Stations

I propose that we begin filling up the stations, I'll create the templates in a day or so. Lets for the time being use the Russian translit (because otherwise it will just confuse everyone) until all the descriptions are done, then we can always create mirrors or change.Kuban kazak 17:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok Template for SBL is ready http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Svyatoshinsko-Brovarskaya_LineKuban kazak 12:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I like it very much, let's go on with it. mno 12:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

KKL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Kurenevsko-Krasnoarmeiskaya_LineKuban kazak 12:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

And SPL is here as well now http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syretsko-Pecherskaya_Line

To whom it may concern: the info on stations, as well the map of planned extentions, are outdated. Syretska and kharkivska Ploscha (really the Boryspilska) are already in use.

If you mean creating the pages for stations by filling up - let's not. It would be irrelevant excessive info I believe. And please don't name anything in Kyiv metro in Russian: it's false (the station has only one official name - it's Ukrainian ), and I'm going to revert such attempts. Wishes, Ukrained 20:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the rest of this conversation. And yes there is a second language name. Any Russian tour guide on London will give a map of the tube with English names or translits. Russian tour guide on Kiev will give a map of the metro in Russian. Also they were official from 1960 up until 1992. That is important. In terms of extensions then read the article on the lines...Kuban kazak 20:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the lines pages mention the new stations, but the main article and map don't. And another outdated thing: we already have a new ground exit on one of the left bank stations (which red line's article mentiones as planned).

As for languages, I'm satisfied with the present state of the articles.

I still think the pages for every station are 1. Excessive. 2.Not a priority for the next few WP years. And remember: I'm here to help you. Cheers, Ukrained 20:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at Moscow Metro (especially my articles on Skhodnenskaya, Kitay-Gorod, Ulitsa 1905 Goda and Volokolamskaya); feel free to edit a bit on the lines, but have a look on my user page about metros as well.--Kuban kazak 23:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

History

Hi Kuban Kazak,

I don't really like the text (from a grammatical point of view) the way it is right now. My main issue is that the first sentance is very long, and it takes a few times to properly understand it. How about breaking it up into a few smaller ones? The most important (I think) is that designs for the system were first put in place in 1934. Then, we could explain why 1934. I do not generally like words like "however" in encyclopedic articles, as they hint too much at "conculsions from reasoning" - if you understand. So I changed the next sentence around a bit, too. (Also, the Great Patriotic War - are you referring to World War II, or a different war? - I don't know the history, sorry.)

Great Patriotic War - Великая Отечественная Война.

That's what I thought - but it would be better on WP to use World War II then - as not many people outside of that area know what the Great Patriotic War is. Americans, for example, never called it that, and I doubt Western Europeans either. mno 12:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

How about something like the following?

The first designs for an ubran transport system in Kiev date to 1934. At that time, Kiev became the capital of the Ukrainian SSR (previously Kharkov), and the city was the third largest in the USSR and the capital of the second largest republic by population. Offset by the Great Patriotic War, construction started in 1949 on the first five stations.

We must remember this article is not about Kiev but about the metro, so the background is ok to be pressed into one sentence. and besides in 1949 work did not began on the stations, first work is always carried out on tunnels, which why five station segment is better.Kuban kazak 12:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but also it should be easy to read and understand. :) Well, what if we throw out half of it - is it really that important that Kiev was the third largest city and capital of second largest republic?

Of course it is important, a big city with a metro that even though is very much similar to Moscows's is often overshadowed by it.Kuban kazak 12:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

But this is crossing into cities, not metro systems. The fact that the city was 3rd largest does not necessarily mean it's subway system was as advanced. mno 15:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well the original metro would not have been as advanced (if you remeber for the first five years it did not even have a proper depot), yet it grew and developed. But that's purely technical, not something in the introductory paragraph. I just want to tell why Kiev deserved to have a metro and why as early as 1960 (when most USSR Metro systems were opened in th 1980s)Kuban kazak 00:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, that is a good point. To be honest, I think that if the current prospective plans are carried out, then Kiev will have a decent metro system. Right now it's good, but still covers very little. I think their next plan after the current ones should be to do a half-right around the outside of the right bank - kinda like something they're planning to do with the green line by twisting it up to Livoberezhna. mno 12:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

About the segments, I agree - but I think it should be a plural, because it is the first five stations - you can consider each station to have its own segment. mno 12:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The system was triumphantly opened in 1960. The original stations are very beautiful and elaborately decorated, carefully blending together traditional Ukrainian motives with those of postwar Stalinism. From the mid-1960s functionality became the most important factor in the metro architecture. Only in the 1970s did decorative architecture start to make a rapid recovery. After the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, some stations were renamed and some of the original decorations were removed.

mno 12:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Line translits

Originally I wrote the line articles with Russian translits, however another user AndriyK (who you might have come across before, who has a tendency of not actually writing any articles but changing their translits), has decided (even though I asked him to wait with tranlits) to move the line articles to ukranian tranlits. As I know commenced to creating templates the issues with two spellings became an absoloute bugger, I tried to revert to Russian translit but wiki wont let me, so I had to change the spelling. Can someone unlock my original translit and change it (no space before after dash). Kuban kazak 13:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Mno can you do anything here?Kuban kazak 12:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I really don't know what to do in this case. Try to get in touch with User:Irpen or User:Mzajac. They seem to have been dealing with this for some time. mno 20:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

How to call stations

	Kurenivsko-Chervonoarmiyska Line (Куренівсько-Червоноармійська лінія)
									Heroiv Dnipra (Героїв Дніпра)
									Minska (Мінська)
									Obolon (Оболонь)
									Petrivka (Петрівка)
									Tarasa Shevchenka (Тараса Шевченка)
									Contract Sq (Контрактова площа)
									Post Sq (Поштова площа)
									Indepedence Square (Майдан Незалежності) Transfer to Khrescatyk, Sviatoshynsko-Brovarska line (Хрещатик, Святошинсько-Броварська лінія)
									Leo Tolstoy Sq. (Пл. Льва Толстого) Transfer to Sport Palace (Палац Спорту), Syretsko-Pecherska line (Палац Спорту, Сиретсько-Печерська лінія)
									Republican Stadium (Республіканський стадіон)
									Palace "Ukraina" ("Палац Україна")
									Lybidska (Либідська)

OK. This is a stub for this line. I will consult with MichaelZ about proper spellings. Also still not sure whether to give translation into English, or transliteration? What do you usualy do, Kazak? Also - do you have any idea how to register this template? Creating - is one thing, but registering seems to be more complicated process. All suggestions are wellcome. Can we leave it at your page, or better to create separate for stubs? And please do not keep evil on my jokes. Lets better work now. Irpen, yes, I did not fight against Yanukovych during Revolution, but whom would we joke about in difficult moments? --Bryndza 04:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll avoid giving English translations on the templates (cause otherwise it will be Heroes of the Dnieper and well a mess. Better leave that for the station articles themselves, like I did for Ulitsa 1905 Goda. There is a talk page for Talk:Kiev Metro where I will move it once I get a reply. Oh and btw all revolutions come to a sour end, in 1917 people really did think they will make a difference, but I ask you to keep politics out of Metro at least. Russian spellings I will agree to remove once I see some evidence of proper station articles. Don't bother with transfers. Here are my templates:

Template:Svyatoshinsko-Brovarskaya_Line Template:Kurenevsko-Krasnoarmeiskaya_Line Template:Syretsko-Pecherskaya_Line

One correction, I think the northmost station should be transliterated as Heroiv Dnipra without ji or yi. Better ask MichaelZ who wrote the WP articles about the transliteration but I think it was him who told me that some time ago. See, for instance the Mykolaiv article. At least that's how other Ukrainian words with ї were transliterated. Also, Bryndza, please remove the borderline jokes about kO- and kA- yourslef. Do you really want people to cooperate here or you want to enjoy your own coolness? And one off-topic comment. You totally misunderstand what happened at Maidan Nezalozhnesti if the main thing you associate with it is Yanuk's mustache. People there protested against the election fraud and wholesale lie rather than simply against Yanuk. Ask me how I know. --Irpen 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You can move it. Agree on leaving original names. Original - means Ukrainian ones. Therefore I will have to change your templates. Or do my own. Which one you choose?--Bryndza 18:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Original names names would be the ones they wre opened with, basically in USSR pre early 1980s Ukrainian and Russian (the latter as being the official language of the USSR) 1980s to 1989 (Russian only) 1989-1991 (Russian and Ukrainian) 1991-1993 (Ukrainian and Russian) finally post 1993 Ukrainian only. Also original would mean that names like Zavod Bolshevik, Leninskaya, Chervonoarmeiskaya, Zhovtnevaya, Ploshchad Zhovtnevoi Revolutsii(actually after last years events the original name is more than suitable), Dzerzhinskaya, Mechnikova, Prospekt Korneichuka, Komsomolskaya, Pionerskaya (I think thats all)? -- Kuban kazak 01:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Guys, let's end this dispute. All station names should be Ukrainian and I can elaborate if anyone seriously still disagrees. OTOH, the Russian versions may be introduced within the articles.

As for mixed, Russo-Ukrainian names, the "Red Army station" was called sometimes Chervonoarmeyskaya at times when Russian was used for announcements and signes. But it was mostly called Krasnoarmeyskaya, as well as the street that gave the station its name. In fact, Kiev had both "Krasnoarmeyskaya" and "Chervonoarmiyska/Chervonoarmeyskaya" streets at certaint time of its history (yes these were two different streets in two different Raions). The station "Zhovtnevaya" was indeed called so in Russian. While some old maps call it "Oktyabr'skaya", that was rarely used. "Maidan Nezalezhnosti" was usually called "Ploshchad' Oktyabr'skoy Revolyutsii" but "Ploshchad' Zhovtnevoy Revoliutsii" was also used sometimes. This Russo-Ukrainian nomenclature made a mess at times. Look at the maps between 84 and 91 at http://www.metropoliten.kiev.ua/maps/schem.php?lang=0 (there are six of them there), and you will see all sorts of combinations. I wrote briefly about this interesting twist with Kiev metro language evolution in the figure caption at Ukrainian_language#Independence_in_the_modern_era. Luckily, this part of the article hasn't been butchered yet by the individual whose name you all know or by one of his cronies. Once I am done with arbitration, restoring UA L article from the messy state will be on the top of my priority list. Feel free to transfer this figure with the caption to this article too.

Anyway, I got carried away, sorry. The narrow dispute on how the stations' articles should be called has a clear answer: by the Ukrainian names transliterated into Latin alphabet. This does not prevent us from introducing the historical names in the text. Regards, --Irpen 02:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly - I've been a professional translator for over thirty years, and our fixed rule is: proper nouns (i.e., people's, companies', organizations', ministries' (etc.) "own" names do not get translated, only (if necessary) explained, so that the reader who doesn't understand the source language can track his or her way to the entity, whether in a book, in the Internet, or in real life. This applies especially, of course, to maps, of all kinds, and especially to station and street names - translating them (Post Square, Independence Square, etc.) would leave you with a map of no value to anybody! BUT: on the subject of maps, where's the plan of the metro in this article - most other language versions have one, also available in an English transliteration? Maelli (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Stations and lines names talk

Lets see then how we call them. These names are also propozed to become the article titles. I will ask MichaelZ to check spelling for us. What will be your other suggestions about these names? --Bryndza 17:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Picture of Kyiv Metro Map for reference: ([1])

Sviatoshynsko-Brovarska Line	Kurenivsko-Chervonoarmiyska Line	Syretsko-Pecherska Line
Akademmistechko	Heroiv Dnipra	Syrets
Zhytomyrska	Minska	Dorohozhychi
Sviatoshyn	Obolon	Lukianivska
Nyvky	Petrivka	Lvivska Brama
Beresteiska	Tarasa Shevchenka	Zoloti Vorota
Shuliavska	Kontraktova Ploshcha	Palats Sportu
Politekhnichnyi Instytut	Poshtova Ploshcha	Klovska
Vokzalna	Maidan Nezalezhnosti	Pecherska
Universytet	Ploshcha Lva Tolstoho	Druzhby Narodiv
Teatralna	Respublikanskyi Stadion	Vydubychi
Khreshchatyk	Palats "Ukrayina"	Telichka
Arsenalna	Lybidska	Slavutych
Dnipro	Demiivska	Osokorky
Hidropark	Holosiivska	Pozniaky
Livoberezhna	Vasylkivska	Kharkivska
Darnytsia	Vystavkovyj Tsentr (Under construction)	Vyrlytsia
Chernihivska		Boryspilska
Lisova

Vyrlitsa is yet to open, but looks right, also don't forget Telichka, in Moscow a similar case is with Volokolamskaya (here is another article which I wrote) a station that was never opened. Here is how they are shown on my templates: -- Kuban kazak 17:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Tagansko-Krasnopresnenskaya_Line
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syretsko-Pecherskaya_Line

Oops, missed one: I would transliterate Ukrainian Вирлиця as Vyrlytsia. —Michael Z. 2005-11-30 23:18 Z

I would suggest to throw away -yy in the end such as Respublikansky Stadion and Politehnichny Institut. This still won't prohibit the authors of the article to introduce other name forms in the text such as those really peculiar Russo-Ukrainian names where Ukrainian vocabulary is superimposed on the Russian grammar such as "Zhovtnevaya". But I don't see any room for dispute on how to call the articles. They station- and line-articles should be called as per the table anove. --Irpen 17:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The correct transliteration is "Respublikanskyi Stadion" [2].--AndriyK 18:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually when transliterating the sound -ЫЙ into english from Russia we use either -IY or just -Y. Like in Okhotny Ryad. Because there is no Ы sound in english at all, it is not wrong to occasionally equavalate it to И. I think Respublikanskiy stadion or simply Respublikansky stadion will be alright, but thats just me.--Kuban kazak 19:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed names of Respublikansky and Politechnichny (yet they sound akward lets see what MichaelZ will say - he seems to be Anglophone), added Telichka. BTW, what are other metro stations in Kyiv to be opened? I mean those that are under construction, not only in plans on paper. We can display them like this:

	Kurenivsko-Chervonoarmiyska Line (Куренівсько-Червоноармійська лінія)
									The NEW (Future)

--Bryndza 19:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I like it, we should also do one for planned and projected (Планируеться и Проектируеться). Read my stuff on recent developments and future plans for all three lines. Here is a summary:

• 2006

КИЕВ - "Вырлица", "Красный Хутор".

• 2007

КИЕВ - "Демеевская", "Голосеевская", "Васильковская".

• 2008

КИЕВ - "Львовские Ворота".

• 2009

КИЕВ - "Виноградарь".

• 2010

КИЕВ - "ДВРЗ"

• 2011

КИЕВ - "Мостицкая".

• 2012

КИЕВ - "Выставочный Центр".

• 2015

КИЕВ - "Вокзальная", "Лукьяновская", "Глубочицкая". (4th Line!!!)

And here are some maps:

• http://www.metropoliten.kiev.ua/pict/maps/plan2020.gif
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:KievMetroPlannedExpansion.gif (bit dated)
• http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/kie/kyiv-metro-projects.gif
• http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/kie/kyiv-map.gif

-- Kuban kazak 22:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Kazak. I included those that are "Under construction" on the map in the table. Are Vyrlytsia and Boryspilska functioning already? Also I found that maps are using -yi for -ий, therefore I made chages in the table again. And for projected (but not "under construction" stations and lines I would suggest also to make a separate article. --Bryndza 22:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Borispolskaya since 23rd of august (here), Vyrlitsa ([3]) is due to open next year. Well construction falls into three categories:

open (speaks for itself)

building (Строеться) ie Krasnyi Khutor, Vyrlitsa, Goloseev radius

Planning (Планируеться) ie DVRZ, north of SPL, 4th line

Projecting (Проектируеться) ie Ulitsa Gerzena.

Then you can have closed (none in Kiev but two in Moscow and one in St Petersburg)

Conserved (Законсервированая) ie Telichka, and Volokolamskaya in Moscow

Then there is abandoned, like Lvovskaya Brama which although building began ages ago, construction was cancelled. (Although Lvovskie Vorota has now began to be rebuilt)

-- Kuban kazak 23:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I made a minor adjustment to the transliteration of Beresteiska and Khreshchatyk in the table above. It's still a judgement call, since we're not formally using a particular transliteration system, but it is consistent with other articles. That's a subject that should be discussed soon amongst all the editors of be/ru/uk subjects. The hybrid ru/uk metro station names are a particularly interesting reason for harmonizing transliteration.

I haven't read over the articles yet, but the whole subject of naming could be an interesting footnote, and a very concrete example for Russification/Ukrainization topics. It also seems not too politically loaded, since it would be simply interesting to describe what names are used officially and informally, historically and today, without having to inject too much interpretation.

For each article about a line or station, I think would be appropriate to list both Ukrainian and Russian names if they have been used. Personally, I think Cyrillic should rarely be necessary at all in en.wikipedia, but the current convention is to include both Cyrillic and Latin transliteration. Not that I don't like Cyrillic (on the contrary), but it's not readable by most anglophones, and transliteration should be able to convey exactly the same information. —Michael Z. 2005-11-30 21:41 Z

I totally agree with you, in Moscow we transliterated everything and then gave the cyrillic names only in the headings of the lines and stations in their respective articles. -- Kuban kazak 22:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding transliteration of -ый/-ий, the correct method depends on the transliteration system (details in romanization of Ukrainian). It's -yj in Scientific Transliteration, -yĭ in ALA/LC, -yy in BGN/PCGN, -ij in ISO9, and -yi in the National system for place names.

But many books and most people's personal names use just -y, from a so-called "modified BGN/PCGN system", which is also sort-of what is used for Wikipedia's transliteration of Russian into English. This is fine for article titles, but doesn't differentiate between -ій, -ий, and -ый, so we save one character in the transliteration, but must include the Cyrillic as well. —Michael Z. 2005-11-30 21:50 Z

Thank you, Michael. I completely agree on including all names the station ever had in the article text (first sentence and History subsection with explanations etc.). This nicely describes official language policy in Ukraine as Irpen demonstrated this very well in Ukrainian language. Yet, in my opinion, the articles should bear the original (Ukrainian) names. All other variants would have have redirects to this main article with Ukrainian (transliterated of course) name. And here I predict some obstacles (not technical) as some articles are already being prepared in an opposite fasion. I would like to be wrong in my worries and ask your opinions on this problem (may be not?).

P.S. As for Respublikansky Stadion and Politehnichny Institut, having such variety of transliteration systems... -y seems to be a single sound, while -ий is not that simple and probably requires minimum 2 letters to reproduce -ий closer and not to make confusion with -ій (as mentioned above). Would anybody have something against -yi? --Bryndza 22:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Bryndza, one more time, I assure you that the names of the articles will be Ukrainian names. I further assure you that from what I know about Kuban kazak, he is not conspiring to soon come up with the bunch of unmovable articles under the Russian names about the Kiev metro. I know of one fellow who creates unmovable article/redirects and his name isn't user:Kuban kazak. I appreciate your compliments to what I wrote about the sign/announcement language evolution in Kiev. As any neutral writing it was attacked and stricken out by certain obsessed individuals and I had to watch for it not to disappear.

The usage inside the articles in appropriate context as well as the alternative names listed in the first line is a totally different issue from the article name. Some people fail to understand that and a completely destroyed history of Chernihiv article shows just that. Written fully by me and Ghirlandajo with Ukrainian, Russian and Polish names being used, depending on the context, that artilce was under the permanent assault for over a month by editors who didn't add a word to it. If we just consentrate on adding information to articles rather than fighting over the names, we would make a much better Wikipedia. If you would consider imposing a volunteerly restriction upon yourself as per my proposal at Wikipedia:Eastern_European_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Games_with_names you would show a good example to some name-obsessed "patriots". One of the reactions to my proposal is demonstrated here.

Overall, I think the names won't be an obstacle to make a great series about Kiev metro which certainly deserves it.

Let's keep this civil and "Шановнi пасажири, не забувайте поступатись мiсцем пасажирам з дiтьми, iнвалiдам та громадянам похилого вiку. Наступна станцiя "Днiпро". Вихiд на праву платформу". --Irpen 23:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

OK guys, till I'm talking here, I see that you already started to work (at least Andrew Alexander is renaming stubs and articles already). I'm going to help. But isn't it true, that we decided not to use " ' " for ь? Kazak, that is great site, that you posted above. Why not to recreate this ([4]) kind of table in WP articles? My be without schedule though. Irpen, on other cities official names of the streets, stations, etc. were just not keeping up with changes in language policies. This is why Kyiv case is unique.--Bryndza 03:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A great site as it may be I don't think that such information is too important in wikipedia, remeber what are the first things that English people would like to see here: Photos, descriptions of stations, maybe some technical details as well check my article on Skhodnenskaya the first Single Vault in Moscow. But things like opening hours and escalator rides maybe useful for local babushkas who live there but certrainly they have little relevance for visitors to this article. The London Tube section is overdone, remember that in the west metro is just a transport system. In our cities, it is always a feature, lets keep wiki this way. Here is another excellent site http://www.metrosoyuza.net --Kuban kazak 20:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Such info is welcome at Wikitravel. Schedules and escalator rides is not encyclopedic info. We should be careful to separate what goes to 'pedia and what goes to 'travel.

Also I have restored the name changes of the KKL as well as absoloutely TEDIOUS time spent removing apostrophes (why do some people never read what's discussed). Can someone check my Ukrainian translits? --Kuban kazak 20:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I will check on them later if no one gets to that before me. OTOH, apostrophes were discussed at tranliteration rules long time ago. Apostrophe is used to replaced a Ukrainian apostrophe but it is not used to replace a soft sign as per WP translit convention. --Irpen 21:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, here's my understanding of how we transliterate. There are two main cases that appear in many articles.

1. For article titles and names used in the text: simplest possible transliteration, miahky znak and apostrof are ignored. Usually italicized to show that this is a foreign term.
2. In the nomenclature section, a more academic, disciplined transliteration is used, showing doubled consonants, and with apostrophies for miahky znak and double apostrophes for the Ukrainian apostrof. This would be the place to include -iy, -yy, or yi, if we can figure out which to use.

There is a mention in the WP:MOS, but we need a place to formalize this, discuss the problems, and keep it up to date. I'll get a page together in the MOS and post a note at the portal. —Michael Z. 2005-12-1 23:03 Z

Bryndza, I didn't quite get what you said. Could you rephrase that? --Irpen 06:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I see Andrew Alexander already started to move and change names. As I said repeatedly, I agree with Ukrainian names. However, too bad he does not care about anything else but eliminate Russian from Ukrainian article. At least a sentence of a meaningful contribution to the article would be also nice to see. --Irpen 06:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, I mean that plates with street names on buildings, Shields on the entrance to towns, names of train stations etc. in other cities and towns were not changing (at least from my observation) even when official language policy was. So this case with Kyiv metro stations (at least, may be streets too) is a unique one to me.--Bryndza 14:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Bryndza, this is not what I remember. This what pretty consistent with the street names written on the plates of the corner houses. They were Ukraininan in 70s, Russian in early-80s, bilingual in mid-to-late-80s. In early nineties bilingular street plates were replaced by the Ukrainian ones. I remember this very well.

Re shileds on town entrances, I remember large letters at the highway that enters Kiev from the West called "Brest-Litovsky Prospekt" (renamed to Prospekt Peremogy in '85). The letters were intitially "К и ї в", later they were changed to "К и е в" and than changed back to "Київ". Same was "Obuv'-Vzuttya-Obuv' ", "Perukarnya-Parikmaherskaya-Perukarnya", etc. The pattern was repeated in several things from 70s to 90s and the pattern was Ukrainian-Russian-Bilingual (Russian first, Ukrainian second)-Bilingual (Ukrainian first, Russian second)-Ukrainian only. (with some bilingual steps sometimes skipped, e.g. for large letter writings like on the stores or smth). This may become a fascinating info for the History of UA L article. What I wrote about the subway was a small step. --Irpen 19:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you talking about Kyiv? I'm sure in Krym the names were always in Russian. And even now they are. In the contrary, in the West street names were always in Ukrainian (at least in my short memory). Only town signs were in Russian until sometime 1988 when people started taking white paint and correcting them themselves. Interesting things anyway.--Bryndza 01:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox of Station

Here is how I propose to do "business card" for every station:

DNIPRO

Kiev Metro
File:Kiew Metro Dnepr.jpegMetro station Dnipro
General Information:
Opening date	December 11 1960
Type of the station:	Surface station, side platforms (only one in Kiev).
Architects:	Hranatkin H.I. Krasitskyi P.F. Ihnashchenko A.F. Krushynskyi, S. I.
The station is located a bridge, has two exists.
Approach to:
Dniprovska Embabkment

Do we really need these?

Please put signature. How do you see article on station yourself? Please give example.--Bryndza 14:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Take my example of Planernaya or Pushkinskaya -- Kuban kazak 15:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There is only text and line template. They have to be, but some kind of short summary and photo for each station seems to be needed too. Especially photo. From what I have seen so far, Kyiv metro stations are unique and much more beautiful than famous metros in NY, London, Montreal etc.

Also why did you remove wheel chair picture from template (Boryspilska station)? There is elevator for handicapped - first in Kyiv Metro. --Bryndza 02:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wheelchairs on the main template? Remember who is this for. Why not specify there which stations have more than one exit, why not specify where the sboiki of the tunnels are on the main template, why not specify wether tiles or marble was used to face the walls ON THE MAIN TEMPLATE... You have to be joking...BTW why did you not put in the extensions into SPL and why not remove the black colour from Vyrlitsa, after all unlike Telichka, it will open next year (have a look here, article about development of that area). -- Kuban kazak 15:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The main article could simply mention the extent to which the system is handicapped-accessible. This would only take a sentence or so, and belongs wherever the architectural features are described. —Michael Z. 2005-12-2 16:56 Z

Yes, acessibility for handicapped people is VERY big issue in developed world. Nowadays EVERYTHING is being built with the options for wheel chair access. Those signs are seen on washrooms, parking lots, entrances to buildings, buses, metro stations and metro maps as well. It is not meant to assault somebody. Impaired peole are taking active part in life if infrastructure permits them. Previous metro station planning did not care about incorporating elevators for those people. Now they do and they mark it on maps (I do not have handy, but I will find). I'm glad, Kyiv metro is working out this issue also and I hope more and more signs like this will appear on metro maps. All other things that Kuban Kazak mentioned - number of exits, marble tiles etc. belong to the text of the article. --Bryndza 01:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to mention the extent and progress of accessibility, but not to create an accessibility inventory or visitors' guide. —Michael Z. 2005-12-2 22:52 Z

So you do not support the wheel chair icon either? I was thinking of these line templates more like about traveller's guide. Some people might even print them before visiting Kyiv.--Bryndza 01:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

But we are not writing a travellers guide, besides as you say no other station provides them, then it does look silly. I am removing it. -- Kuban kazak 14:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Guys, please take a note that there is a separate Wikitravel sister project where the travel guide-like info belongs and everyone is welcome to add the schedules, token prices, etc., there. Besides, we should make a wikilink from the article to the Wikitravel. However, for the Wikipedia article, I think we only need encyclopedic info. We should just make a judgement to separate what's encyclopedic and what's not. --Irpen 02:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Apostrophes

Can the person who littered the articles with apostrophes please come forward and read the conventions that wiki does not like them in titles regradless of what language. PLEASE refrain from using them in the future. -- Kuban kazak 12:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Transliteration

The closest thing to a guideline is at WP:NC#Ukrainian names. I wrote that based on what I perceived as the consensus usage at the time. I don't think it's quite right, and I think it should be reëvaluated. I'll start a separate MOS page where Ukrainian transliteration can be discussed. Or perhaps a manual page to cover all Cyrillic transliteration would be a good idea. —Michael Z. 2005-12-1 23:08 Z

OK guys, I just spent few hours renaming ALL articles, templates, tables and names in all the texts. All is standardised per table above (I think nobody had anything against). Also ALL links for stations will have (Kiev metro) in them. Now we can click on any staion name, create article and start filling it up with information. I will make better Infobox for them this week. Any complains? --Bryndza 04:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Bridges

Would someone write the Bridges of Kiev (already red-linked in several articles, including this one? Bridges development is an important trend in Metro growth. Metro fans? Ukrained 22:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't there a book in Ukrainian about that? I have know of "Mansions of Kiev" and "Streets of Kiev" buit I don't remember seeing a bridges book. Has anyone seen it? It would be hard to write an article for non-specialists, like us, without a dedicated book. --Irpen 22:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

There is now a List of bridges in Kiev --TheGrappler 18:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the article back to the original Kiev bridges location. Please care to propose article moves. Thanks! --Irpen 18:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit War

How long will this have to continue for?

1. When hooligans graffiti marble walls or knock of bits of decorations that is considered vandalism and does damage to the decoration and composition. So when people remove compleate scuptures and plaques that is not damaging the composition?

   We can use "altering" that I proposed but I see your point. --Irpen 23:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

2. If Serpukhovskaya in Moscow, looks similar to Lybedskaya in Kiev is that just by chance? Even though the two opened after one another and more stations in that design followed also implies that there is no possibility of one having influenced the other?

   I think you make sense here. --Irpen 23:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

   Sorry, that's original research. Stations may look similar to you, but not to other people. Also, stations are not people, they cannot "borrow" anything, as the article says now.--Pecher 08:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

   Exactly, and considering that such design first time appeared with those stations (is that also original research? Now just because they have been succesful and many others were built in all other USSR cities with that design, does that still mean that there is no way that could have been related to Lybedskaya's success. Would pioneered suit you?--Kuban kazak 13:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

   I have changed to "influenced." Hopefully, that will not prove controversial.--Pecher 14:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

3. How come the fact that vendors exist in any post-Soviet subway passes not just Metros means that that is original research just because you do not believe that? Ask any Kievan here: Irpen, AndriyK, Ukrained...Or anyone who has been to Kiev.

   Sure, there are vendors in subway stations. No need to prove it. --Irpen 23:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

   What's the problem here? I have myself reworded the passage, so that it mentions "vendors" now.--Pecher 08:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

4. Communist ideology is freedom, brotherhood, equality. Soviet ideology is hammer and sickle, Dzerzhinskiy, Comsomol, Pioneers, Red Army, Lenin, Stalin... Need I say more.

   You are right I think. --Irpen 23:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

   Hammer and sickle are Soviet symbols, not ideology. I do not mind though, rewording the paragraph so that it would talk about symbols instead of ideology.--Pecher 08:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

5. In concurance to the points above, it is more logical to say that after the Break up of the Soviet Union, rather than after Ukraine became indpendent.

   I think it is fine to mention both the breakup and the independence in one sentence. The events are related and their concequences, as far as the subway goes, too. --Irpen 23:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

6. Is the fact that all international art organisations refer to the post war period as Stalinist architecture not Stalin's architecture means that it has to be now Stalin's? Considering that Stalin was not an architect...

   I agree. --Irpen 23:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

   Stalin's Empire style is a widely accepted term.--Pecher 08:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

   In Russian and Ukrainain Stalinskiy Ampir is common term. Abroad it is known as Stalinist Architecture. WP article is titled Stalinist architecture.

7. Finally answer me are you always this thick?

user:Kuban kazak

Guys, this seem such a minor issue to edit war over. Compare it to other articles conflicts! Please take a pause and don't war over these small things. I will try to propose a compromise. --Irpen 23:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Maintaining civility is a keystone Wikipedia policy, and so is the prohibition on personal attacks. Repeated violations of these policies on part of User:Kuban kazak certainly do not improve collaboration in editing.--Pecher 08:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well be civil then, if you do not like something start a discussion, don't go into edit wars and do not be so sceptical and critical about everything that goes. --Kuban kazak 13:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians are encouraged to Be bold.--Pecher 14:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I second your call for civility. --Irpen 08:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Commons Photos

Taken in 1962, hence unprotected, so I stole them from www.metropoliten.kiev.ua; fell free to distribute them around wiki. --Kuban kazak 01:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Line map

First version without station names.

Hi all,

I've drawn a version of the map of the Kiev metro. It includes the current working lines, all planned expansions and also includes the fast tram line from Vokzalna station. A version is below. Tell me what you think. The hardest part now is labeling the stations, there is not too much room left. Any suggestions?

mno 22:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice work.

Just label the lines, or their terminals, and perhaps the main transfer stations. The full list of stations is available in the individual articles. Alternatively, you could make a second full-screen version with all of the stations labelled, and link to it from the caption of the small one on the page.

Is is possible to add the city limits, or outlying towns, or something else to help gauge the extents of the system? Perhaps just a graphical scale marked in kilometres.

By the way, would you be willing to provide your original line art as an SVG file? —Michael Z. 2006-02-05 22:38 Z

Second version without station names, with legend.

I've gone ahead and put in some stations that I was missing from the first version. Also, I added a legend. I've also added the more populated areas of Kiev. Please keep in mind that this region is not drawn too accurately, but only to aid in understand what the metro covers. It may not be correct, in which case let me know. I've taken it from several sources. It is not a map of the Kiev raions.

Regarding the SVG image, I would be able to had PaintShop Pro been capable of exporting in SVG format. I will see if there are any tools that can take a .pspimage file and export the layers into an SVG image. Jasc used to have WebDraw, maybe that would still work?

mno 01:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice. I didn't want to make any extra work for you, just thought you may be able to save directly into SVG. One more picky request: please don't draw an outline where the water continues off of the map; either draw it to the edge of the map, or cut it off with a straight edge without a border, so we get a sense of the river's continuation. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-02-06 06:08 Z

Third version without station names, with legend.

Great, thanks for the suggestions ;) Here's the next (and seems almost final, if not final) version. I decided to get rid of the fade behind the legend, it looked weird a bit. I've also changed the population zone to make it smoother. I don't think it matters too much if it's a little bit out of the actual zone, as regardless it's still inside the raion zones. I think it looks better this way.

I am downloading CorelDRAW, we'll see if it can read the .pspimage files (PaintShop Pro was purchased by Corel some time ago). I don't like PaintShop Pro, in any case, anymore, so maybe CorelDRAW would be a good replacement. So hopefully an SVG image is coming.

mno 06:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you work fast. I agree the fading was a bit distracting. If you want to differentiate the legend, then a 50% transparent white box with a sharp edge might look neat, but I think it's perfectly readable as is. —Michael Z. 2006-02-06 06:41 Z

Hehe, yes, the changes are not too big. I will wait for other comments before making a4. But yes, I think I will outline the legend more than right now, and maybe re-draw the populated zone to make it smoother and to get rid of some more "bumps" like on the south. --mno 06:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion one: Update per 2005 (Borispolskaya) and add future station locations on existing lines (Lvovskaya Brama, Telichka, Vyrlitsa) - the latter to open in almost a month's time. Also add locations of future stations.

Suggestion two: Kiev not Kyiv (for reasons of formality). Apart from that a good effort.

Suggestion three: Separate under construction with planned and with perspective future plans.

--Kuban kazak 10:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

My comments are here: Image_talk:Kiev_metro_map_a3.png mno 08:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Metro map

I hope nobody minds that I took the original and modified it slightly, for one I do not like stations being in the middle of rivers. Sorry but out of habit brought Russian spelling into it as well.

• original
  original
• my improved version
  my improved version

I drew the map for the ru:wiki section, and will be done with an english version within a few days time. Please be patient. --Kuban Cossack 11:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In your so called "improved version" you changed all Ukrainian names to the Russian. This is obviously inappropriate, and I see it as an attempt to vandalise this article. People in Ukraine chose to live in an independent country (independently from the Soviet Union), and they chose Ukrainian language to the official language of their country. Your attempt to impose Russian language map over the Ukrainian map is provoking and is a clear example of Russian chauvinism toward Ukraine, Kiev and its people‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› .

If you draw the map for ru:wiki then put it there. There is no point to put the map here. Your explanation is unreasonable, as well as your persistency in reverting. Anonymous, 18:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all please avoid personal insults and generalisations for a country where you don't even live (your IP - [5]). Second the map is not vandalism especially since more than 80% of that article is written by me. Finally this is not Uk:wiki this is en:wiki, and for english users Russian or Ukrainian does not matter (Actually I am working on an English version of itP. English users will however raise eyebrows on maps that have stations in the middle of rivers. Hence, until I upload the English version (or would you be kind enough to do that instead of trolling on that artilce) my map stays. Any more reverts and I will ask the admin to lock the article. --Kuban Cossack 17:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I see your persistent attempts (4 times, which is a violation of 3RR) to impose Russian language map over the Ukrainian map as "provoking and a clear example of Russian chauvinism toward Ukraine, Kiev and its people". This is not a personal insults , neither it's a generalization (of what?); this is a staightforward description of your today's edits on this article.

OT.

Your actions is also am exaple of [:Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism], which is defined as "any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia".

The issue with "the station in the middle of the river" is irrelevant. It may be easily fixed without changing the names all across the map. You use this issue as an excuse to put the Russian map. Anonymous, 18:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Make sure you read the article that you cite, and see what is vandalism and what is improvement

Your statement that "for english users Russian or Ukrainian does not matter" is not correct and is offensive for English users. They do know Ukraine and Russia are diffrenet and the Ukrainian and Russian are different.

Your point? Kiev Metro maps are published in Russian as well as in English. There are plenty of English language sources which give both versions. Would you like some examples?--Kuban Cossack 19:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy your 24 hour break.--Kuban Cossack 20:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

A new English map

Should be compleated by the weekend. --Kuban Cossack 13:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I wish to add a point that while the image is currently tagged as fair use, it is in fact self-made because altering an official map creates a completely new image, not protected by the original copyright. That's the way most maps were done on Wikipedia; this one should be no exception. Pecher ^Talk 18:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case can you change the liceses of both the RU and UK maps (Ezhiki modified the latter as well). Can I aslo ask you to upload them to commons were I already amassed quite a gallery of 1962 images. --Kuban Cossack 18:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

File:Kiew Metro Map Eng 2005.png

OK guys, a terrible thing happened, our stanitsa had a blackout and my blovedly photoshoped version was lost :(. This is an interim version done by simple paintbrush. Next version I will include parts that are under construction. --Kuban Cossack 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Kuban kazak, could you explain why we need two types of English labels (i.e. translation from Ukrainian, and translation from Russian) on one map. It would be the best to see a map with English labels and Ukrainian labels. The Ukrainian labels are actually present on metro stations, and the map may help for an English-only speaker to identify his location.--Anonymous 06:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear all. Let's just not bring here the irrelevant arguments. WP is not a travel guide. Such considerations belong to Wikitravel talk pages. I can see arguments both for and against including Russian name based transliteration. On one hand, this is how stations were known for a significant period of time and as such they are relevant. Certainly they are relevant enough to be mentioned in station's own articles. Are they relevant enough to be included on the map is a judgement call. The main argument against them, from common sense POV, is extra clutter. Does this clutter compensate the amount of loosely relevant useful info they bring, I am not sure. The real life argument against them, is annoyance to some to see Russian names in Ukraine related articles. This is a real concern, and, all in all taking this into account, I would not have included the Russian names if I was making a map. But because I am not certain either way, I would neither delete, nor add them if someone else have decided otherwise. I would certainly delete the Cyrillic Russian map and replaced it by a Ukrainian one. But this one is an English map and it is advantageous for en-wiki compared to either of the Cyrillic ones.

However, gentlemen, here another rule comes into play: the one who pulled the sled uphill gets a ride. He was the only one to care about the article enough to draw a map with Latin letters. Naturally, he created it as he saw fit. I chastised him for adding ru-based names because I've been around long enough to expect the reactions, but he explained his reasons and my objections are not strong enough in this particular case.

Kuban Cossack unlike most others, really cares about Kiev Metro enough to contribute to this and related articles with a large amount of useful information. That is while he is concerned about Kiev metro itself, some are concerned primarily by de-Russification of things. I realize, this is a legitimate concern in general, and K.K's positions are often disagreeable to others, myself included. However, as far as this article is consented, it is KK who deserves the Kudos. So, whoever cares, make a nice map with UA-only based station names or, better yet, spend this time on writing another paragraph on Kiev metro history or an article on the Kiev tram, the first tram in the Russian Empire. --Irpen 07:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I only wanted to discuss things first. Because I don't quite understand what Kuban kazak is about to do with Dnepropetrovsk and Krivoi Rog maps. According to Kazak (ref), he plans to edit them "like he did on Kiev Metro". And I want to point out that keeping two English labels on one map is nonsense. And spending time putting duplicate English labels is worthless. As far as I understand, we are keeping them on Kiev Metro map as a temporary solution, because at this point nobody is willing to spend time improving it.--Anonymous.

Anon if things like that insult your national pride...get a life.--Kuban Cossack 09:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a great idea, to add Russia transliterated names. For consistency I have started working on the map of Moscow metro to add Ukrainian names transliterated in English. There are a lot of Ukrainians in English speaking countries who will find that useful. --Compay 22:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No need to look further: You find this helpful [6]. Reminds me of Putin's April fool's joke of making Ukrainian the state language of Russia. :))) --Kuban Cossack 22:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's just recall what was discussed. The Russian-based names for Kiev stations were justified not because they are useful for Russians (or anyone). WP, is not a travel-guide. Such justifications are good for those who want to write for Wikitravel. The reasons they are useful, is that the stations where known under those names for a significant part of their history. OTOH, personally, I don't see them as crucial to be deserving an edit war and if someone is irked by them so badly, s/he is welcome to create a Russian-clean map. It will have an advantage of being less of a clutter and another advantage of "not having the imperialist smell". The disadvantage is that it would not provide historically meaningful names. I say they pros and cons are on the par here. If others see this as important for them, by all means create a Russian-free map and feel better. Should anyone start an edit war, that would be one of the lamest wars here. --Irpen 22:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually right now I am working on improving the current version to show the future and perspective lines and stations. --Kuban Cossack 22:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a preview[7].--Kuban Cossack 23:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-english languages in the article

I would like to share my view on this based on my general feeling on how this is done around WP as well as my take on the commons sense. The primary name of all stations and lines should be Ukrainian. Transliterations to English should be Ukrainian-based. Names on the maps and charts should be in English. If we don't have an English map and no one wants to make it, we should use the Ukrainian ones available at the official site. There are no excuses to violate this, except, perhaps when there is some map or diagram available in Russian only and no one is able or willing to make a Ukrainian one. Such case is extremely unlikely though.

Historical maps are a different story and the rules should be more liberal. The article may get expanded to include historical maps. If such maps happen to be Russian, so be it. Similarly, Russian maps might be useful to illustrate the almost surreal names like "Ploschad' Zhovtnevoy rebolyutsii". However, historic usage is a different story and flexibility with it should not affect the rule that everything modern should reflect the reality, that is to be in Ukrainian (and please no "Kiev is a Russophone city" arguments here. Our choice of name is defined by Wikipedia style guidelines and not the non-English languages spoken elsewhere)

Finally, the original Ukrainian language versions (in cyrillic) may be given for station and line names (especially in their dedicated articles). However, giving a name in the original language does not mean provide the Ukrainian translation of english words. "Святошинсько-Броварська" is the Ukrainian name and deserves to be given. "Київський Метрополітен" is just a translation of "Kiev Metro". Mere translations of the words Metro or subway or tram or trolleybus belong to dictionaries which Wikipedia isn't. --Irpen 04:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree here. Pecher ^Talk 18:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, language issues seem to occupy disproportionately muhc space, maybe 30%, of the entire article the topic of which is, incidentally, a metro. Pecher ^Talk 18:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary note, Kiev Metro was known as Kievskiy Metropoliten for over 41 years; certainly that is important. Also there are quite a few texts that give both versions of the names, Russian and Ukrainian. Finally the fact that Kiev is Russophone is important, as those words are commonly used in the public and the Russian laguage press. This of course may not be wikitravel but it should be mentioned. Last but not least, does it really matter if we have two versions? I mean Kharkov a few days passed the law that made Russian an official language as well. Crimea also has official Russian laguage. In that sense it is fair to assume that Russian in Ukraine plays more of a role than just a commonly spoken tongue. However I do agree that there is no need for full tranliterations otherwise remember: MPS SSSR; Kievskiy Metropoliten imeni V.I Lenina, Stantsiya Leninskaya)--Kuban Cossack 18:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Kazak, you like to complicate things by lumping everything up and then see whether it would fly. Please don't do it. Kiev being a Russophone city is totally irrelevant for the primary names. It may justify giving a Russian name after the Ukrainian one but no way a substitutuion. Kharkov's law legitimacy is questionable and in any case it is irrelevant for the langauges to use at Wiki. See talk:Kharkiv. Russian being official in Crimea is simply factually incorrect. It is de-facto a primary language there, including the governemnt, and WP should reflect that, but constitutionally, there is only one official language throughout the territory of Ukraine. And so on and so forth. Please, don't inflame the sensitive issues. --Irpen 19:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

So hold on a second what are you trying to suggest that we use Russian after Ukrainian (I never said before) the titles or do we not? If I understood your large paragraph correctely then it is the latter you are trying to argue. WRT to map it is coming to its conclusion. Although I will not finish it today, I will upload it tommorow (hopefully). --Kuban Cossack 19:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to suggest to not bring a questionable Kharkiv law and the sensitive issue of Crimea in the talk:Kiev metro to which both have exactly zero relevance but will rub the old wounds and make others angry. Stay on topic and don't make your favorite points all over Wikipedia. --Irpen 19:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's just edit with care if we care

Kazak, this silly edit war with useless dozens of entries in history would not have happened if you simply added an English map rather than the Russian one or at least a Ukrainian map if you don't have an English one yet. Please be more sensitive to other editors. Ukraine might have changed since you've been there last time. Also, I saw a bunch of rush-reverts and rush-edits both here and at Christianity article. This is a total waste of time and threatens to get some articles, even with POV problems, but written with some care because people took time to write them reduced into a total mess. Besides with hundreds of edits added within a day or two it would get impossible to sort this all out. The result would be a change of at least somewhat consistent, but perhaps POV-tainted articles, into a total mess of disconnected pieces pasted together with each of them having its own edit war and each of them terribly POV: one in one direction and the other in the opposite direction. This would be an overall loss in article's quality and in scarse Wikipedia coverage of Ukraine in general, this is unaffordable loss for us. Please note, that this doesn't help even in de-POVing the article because discontinued pieces would be even more POV-corrupted. Please edit carefully, that's all. There are some articles, where it is tempting to do some FAST changes and not care. Those, are usually "strong stuff" articles, like -phobia (Russo-, Polono-, Romano-) or -philia (Russification, Polonization, Ukranization, Rumanization). Even in those "strong-stuff" articles itchy edits usually damage rather than improve them. In articles with reasonable amount factual material, especially proofread ones (like this one or the Christianity), this would just tear them apart.

Finally, admitedly Kazak is not neutral towards Ukraine. I would not call him anti-Ukrainian but he has a POV which one can see from his edits. However, what would this article be without him? A pity stub! If you, you and you (and me) care about Kiev metro article, help him write it rather than butcher his work and leave. I myself alerted him about the problem with RU L map and he promissed to take care of the issue. What's good in the useless article's history created by fast sloppy edits. We are lucky if in adition to rendering history useless, this doesn't tear the article apart, like the October-November tear-down of Ukrainian language article, which is still a mess ever since.

I hope this edit war subsided. I hope the Christianity article can be repaired and gradually improved to FA. UA L article will get the history spun-off and improved as well. I hope, we can make some change by altering our editing habbits. My small two cents to the world peace was helping kill that Kharkiv back to Kharkov move proposal (see talk:Kharkiv). --Irpen 01:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Conflict vs alteration

If an architect designs a structure (say a metro station) which includes political slogans and motives in the decoration (say Communist symbols). Then years later under polical reasons someone decides to remove them. Wouldn't that be a conflict with the original design of that sturucture, based on the architects plan?

I mean if hooligans tear down those decorations that would be vandalism and certainly ruining the original design. So why should politically sanctioned moves have double standards?--Kuban Cossack 20:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Kuban Cossack, we have discussed this issue a month ago. To remind you, the stations were remodeled, and the Soviet symbols were removed. It was done by architects, not by hooligans. There is an opinion that it improved the original design. There is an opinion that it created a conflict with the original design. The neutral way to express it is that it altered the original design. KPbIC 20:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Architects or not, it is a fact that any remodellings changes the decoration such that the original splendour is lost. Be it adding changing or removing decoration. Better or worse is up to the people. I am speaking in strict architectural terms. Also I would like some citations that it was architects, not politicians who did that. Since there was no real reconstruction, they just knocked down a barlief, a sculpture and took it away. That does not need an architect to perform. In some places. E.g. Vokzalnaya you can still see just how architecturally well it was made when the actual casts remained. --Kuban Cossack 21:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, staying within "strict architectural aspects", the remodeling (this is how it's called in architecture) was done according to a decision by respective authorities (you may call it a political decision), but it was done by architects (not by hooligans, not by crowd), and as professionals they changed the design, avoiding any architectural style conflicts. In my opinion, the stations are now look better without Soviet time symbolics. But this is my POV. You are saying that architects were not successful, and all they did was creating a conflict with the original design. This is your POV. Stating the fact that the original design was altered is a neutral POV. If you are claiming that the redesign was unprofessional and it created a conflict, then you are the one who need to bring reliable references in support of that. KPbIC 23:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

However, irrespective wether it was architects or hooligans (although I do not distinguish in such a case, that is my POV) the original composition was lost. That is a fact. This vandalised version of the station that you caller remodelling is only a remnant of the original splendour and thus conflicts with it. That is the professional architects POV, which any architect will support. As for the stations looking better, on the contrary end of Vokzalnaya, empty space, Universitet same thing, you can even see where Lenin used to be, even an amateur architect would not be so silly to leave that behind. So I want refrences that it was architects that did this, and not some desperate politicians. --Kuban Cossack 01:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Now you are trying to go in circles. Again, I agree that the decision to remodel the stations was driven by political factors. So, (1) politicians made the decision, (2) architects determined on what exactly should be done, (3) and they directed workers to do so. This is the proper way, and this is how it was done. Also, from what I know, it is commonly shared within architect profession that such remodeling should be done without creating a conflict with an original design, but rather improving the design. So, again, you are the one who is claiming that the metro remodeling not only altered the original composition, but also created a conflict. Then, you are the one who need to bring references. KPbIC 02:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

without creating a conflict with an original design In that case explain how could they be so silly to leave traces of those statues. Also explain in that case why other Communist symbols were retained. The stations look emptier. And the architectural composotion is not improved IT IS DESTROYED. --Kuban Cossack 09:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Liberation from Soviet rudimets

My dear Kpbis Please keep your POV that disrespects architectural terminology outside wikipedia.--Kuban Cossack

Exactly, you have got the point. In no way your POV is not better. Thus, back to a neutral version with "altering" word. KPbIC 00:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

My is not a POV it is a solid fact Your's is a POV and an unproven hypothesis. --Kuban Cossack 09:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Kuban kazak, solid facts should be supported by creadible sources. Did any published source state that "ruining the original architectural composition of those stations"? Even if they did, it is just a POV of the author of the source. Therefore, it should be presented in the form "some authors believe that the original architectural composition of those stations were ruined by ..." or something like this. If there are no sources, please do not insert your original research into the article and keep the present neutral formulation.--AndriyK 09:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It is an architectural fact. And yes there are sources take this one [8]. If consider things like lighting then Недавно были изменены нормы по освещенности станций. С одной стороны, это связано с изменением показателей по безопасности на транспорте, с другой - с существующей террористической угрозой. К этому надо относиться как к утилитарной необходимости - в этом я отдаю себе отчет. Но если для "Охотного ряда" повышение уровня освещенности и изменение колорита с теплого на холодный существенно не повлияли на восприятие архитектуры станции, то для "Кропоткинской" бездумное, механическое применение норм обернулось серьезным уроном для художественного образа. Формально на станции ничего не разрушено, за исключением изуродованных колонн, но разрушен архитектурный авторский замысел, благодаря которому она была признана жемчужиной первой линии метро. Read the whole article --Kuban Cossack 11:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We discuss here the article about Kiev Metro. Your reference is relevant to Moscow Metro.--AndriyK 11:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Architecture is relevant to all cases regardless of where it is.--Kuban Cossack 11:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be accurate. The article you cited is not about architecture in general, but about Moscow Metro. Your extrapolation to Kiev Metro is nothing else as original research.--AndriyK 14:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It is an architectural terminology. You are the one that is inducing original research and if you care to read it wholly, which you did not, you will see my point.--Kuban Cossack 15:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I did read your reference and found it irrelevant to the subject of the article and to our discussion.--AndriyK 15:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean its irrlevant the article clerely states that any minor change such as lightning or removal of a figure...and the station looses its original composition and splendour, as well as the architects work ruined, remember that in our Metros the stations are not only station they are also a monument to their time. Глядя на покрытие стен в наземном вестибюле, можно заметить и течи, и нелучшее состояние камня. Но нужно заметить и другое - если в нижних рядах установлены крупные квадры хорошего камня, то по мере подъема к потолку блоки начинают измельчаться. Помня о том, что станция сооружена во время войны, я расцениваю эту неоднородность облицовки, когда лучший камень укладывался в зоне видимости человеческого глаза, а худший - наверху, как историческое свидетельство героических усилий Метростроя, который в таких тяжелых условиях продолжал сооружать эти станции. Поэтому механическая замена всего и вся мне кажется не совсем уместной. So when someone does take such detail away it is destroying history and of course the original decoration.--Kuban Cossack 15:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Kuban Kazak: in the interview you are referring to [9], Dushkina is expressing her concerns that "метрополитеном стали проводиться работы, направленные на "обогащение" архитектуры станций, наносящие урон их облику, снижающие их историческую и художественную ценность", which shows two POV: the dominant POV, which is the station architecture being improving, and the alternative POV, which is the station architecture being damaging. In this wikipedia we follow NPOV, and the neutral POV is: the original architecture has been altered. Also, as AndriyK correctly pointed out, the interview you have found presents an opinion of Dushlina about recent changes in Moscow metro mostly with respect to lightening, which would be nice to to incorporate into Moscow Metro article. Here we are talking about Kiev metro in early 1990s with respect to its "liberation from Soviet rudiments". KPbIC 19:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What Dushikina (who is also an architect, like her predecessor) is saying is that a change for better or for worse destroys the originallity of the consturction. That is all I am trying to say. I mean the new lighting boxes on Svyatoshin do look nicer than the old crude 1960s ones, but by installing them this made the whole station lose their originality. The key word is original (ie первоначальный архитектурный облик). Wether the change went for better or for worse is a different case. Personally I am not fond of Lenin, but I do believe that without him stations like Universitet in Kiev now look emptier because the originallity is gone. --Kuban Cossack 20:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Replacement of some decorative material

I'm not questioning lightening changes (wich I agree with), but where did you take "replacement of some decorative material" from? KPbIC 19:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Decorative material as in relaying marble or tilework. As far as I know all of the original first stage stations' tilework on the walls was exactly replaced in 2000 to commemorate their 40th anniversarry. Obviously Lukyanovskaya, will need a new plastering on the ceiling once the hydroisolation is repaired. (Beuatiful station, but what a sorry sight). I'll check the rest. --Kuban Cossack 20:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I know they changed escalators, which is called “maintenance”. Changing light tubs is also maintenance rather than anything else, but I guess “renovation” is also correct. KPbIC 21:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Maitenence as it is, it changes the station's appearance, such minute detail as different light shade or even minute change to the colour gamma plays its part in the composition.--Kuban Cossack 21:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph

Explain your grievences, it has not been edited for ages and now you are starting. What is it this nasty habit you have of assaulting everything? Why not write some articles of your own for a change? --Kuban Cossack 21:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

First, if it has not been edited for a while it means that it's been just waiting for improvement. I hope you would agree that it's up to me what I create or edit or work on.

Anyway, back to the issues. This article is about Kiev metro. If it were just another Soviet metro, then probably it does not even deserve an article. If it does, and if in fact it has some distintive features then it should be the main focus of the article. Thus, instead of

Metro systems in the former Soviet Union are known for their vivid and colourful decorations, and Kiev metro is no exception.

the better way to write Kiev Metro article is

Kiev metro, similarly to the metro systems in the former Soviet Union, is known for vivid and colourful decorations.

Again, the first paragraph was waiting for a change, and I changed it. If you want to write everything your way, ignoring good-faith contributions of others then probably you better create your website. KPbIC 22:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I still do not understand your issue about why Kiev Metro is no exception to the single most detail that makes all ex-Soviet Metros stand out. We are writing articles for the english readers, now their common knowledge does tell them, somewhere in the backs of their heads. That this is the most important factor. We are not writing this for the pleasure of people who do not like their own history.

Kuban, let me politely remind that your comments like "people who do not like their own history" are offensive, and will probably go straight into your RfC.

Offensive for whom? For Ukrainians? Let I remind that it was Ukrainians who built that metro in the first place, and Ukrainian architects who decided to have Socialist slogans in the decor, and for that fact it was Ukrainians who founded the USSR as the original republic.

Back to the point, the two sentences provide the same information. The second one directly says "similarly to the metro systems in the former Soviet Union", which is as much plain and simple for any English reader as it can be. Still, the main objective of this article is Kiev metro, and that is what the focus should be on.

On the contrary the main topic is the architecture, and an such an introduction is good build-up to explain the Kiev Metro.

1. The original stations built in early 1960s For your information original stations were built in the 1950s and opened in 1960

In my opinion the word "original" needed clarification, as the other stations are classified as "stations in 1970s", "stations in 1980s", so the it would be better to add here that the original were opened in 1960s.

Like I said before by original I meant the first stage. Then 1960s, 70s 80s 90s whatever. I would actually expand on that.

1. the architecture design became simplified as functionality It did not became simiplified it was immediately added intergrated. On the contrary Kiev managed to hold out the longest and its first stage is really the last of the Mogikans for Stalinist Metro architecture. For your information 1957 last in Mosocow Frunzenskaya and Sportivnaya. 1958 with exception of VDNKh and Alekseevskaya, you get Rizhskaya and Prospekt Mira, compleately dull Khrushchevki (basically built as Stalinist stations but left like bare carcases) Same for Leningrad 1955 first stage beuautiful. 1958 Ploshchad Lenina and Chernyshevskaya, compleately gone. So how did Kiev survive until 1960s? Miracle. Anyway 1963 already Politekh and Bolshevik - same as the ones above. Mid 1960s surface stations which have anything but decoration, pure concrete builidings. 1971, again typicall sorokonozhki.

you are claiming that functionality of the metro became the most important factor in the architecture, but architecture incudes the whole design of a station, and not only in the mid-60s, always the functionality was the most important factor in the metro design. You are rather talking about the decorative part of the architecture, and this was the point of my correction.

It did, decorative architecture was non-exitant in the 1960s constructions save a few tile patterns on the sorokonzhki.

1. Then 1976, compleate reversal of styles. RAPID recovery.

Initially there was one extreme of too much decoration, then too little, then it ended somewhere in the middle.

One extreme - fist stage. 1960s it gets abruptly cut with Khrushchev's struggle with decorative architecture, and only recovers by the mid-1970s adjusting to the contemprary tendencies.

1. As for me getting a website, then I might, but I enjoy writing metro articles, and do not like it when rats (who themselves write nothing) attack them. --Kuban Cossack 22:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like people who are presenting wrong information and their POV as NPOV, and I feel obligated to correct it. On your website you may write about "Lenin squire" in Kiev, or whatever yuo want, but I would rather see this wikipedia with valid and neutral information. KPbIC 23:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Krysa, I do not write wrong information, for one thing I know Metro very well and I know what I am writing about. You on the other hand are not writing anything yet criticising others and stalking on all of my edits. If people valued your neo-childish claims versus the hundred of articles that I wrote I think it is you who is going to be defending yourself on RfC, not me. Can you write articles on the Metro stations? Can you write articles at all? Also why do you pick on me? If you want POV pushers than there are several to tackle like Molobo or Space Cadet or Rydel, or even your own AndriyK. Tell you something regardless of how you look at it, but wikipedia is measured in truth not in conflicts. If AndriyK instead of edit warring initially took his efforts to write a several dozen of articles and then made those page moves that got him banned, do you think he would have looked like a complete idiot on his arbcom had he made a good contribution to wiki? In the end that is what it boils to. The amount of useful contributions. Your list is currentely negligible. My list might be limited to Metro, but it is significant in that field. I suggest that you stop bickering and trying to hold open the door for me to leave wiki through, because the draft might just sweep that rat out before I approach anywhere near it. I'll tell you one thing, I respect people on wiki solely on their useful contributions, and believe me the more you have the more upper hands you gain in solving disputes. --Kuban Cossack 00:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What was lost, tried to rewrite

This is my second attempt to add my comments here. The first one was lost to the computer mishap, so I will try to recreate what's still in my memory.

I think you both are right. Kazak in saying that alteration of the original design creates a conflict with it. Sorry, but this is almost by definition. If I try to "improve" Shevchenko's poetry by moderating what seems like anti-Semitic outbursts (because he is known to protest anti-Semitism in his writings as well), I will not do a Master any favor. I am not comparing the work of mid-60 architects with Shevchenko's poetry and I have no intention to try myself in poetry ever (let alone to dare to play with matsers' writings), but I hope the analogy isn't lost.

So, Kazak is right that post-Independent Ukrainian architects who tore down the original socialist realism symbols did create a conflict with the original design (if there were architects there btw, not some Vuyko with an axe sent by the head of the Gorkom who conveniently changed his political colors in '91 the next day after Leonid Makarovich changed his).

In what Kazak is wrong, IMO, is that this information belongs to this article in this exact form. Let's not loose the perspective of what's this article about. It is about so many things, that this is just a minor detail (see also the discussion below about the language issues). I think, Kazak should settle for the tongue-in-cheak "alteration". It gets the message through just about right that people played with the original design, and sets aside the contentious damage/improvement debate. And the "liberated" there was clearly a trollish edit. Please avoid inflammation, whenever possible. --Irpen 22:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Language issues

I frankly fail to see the need for this section here: to my opinion it belongs to the Ukrainization article, but still is little more then a curiosity for those who care. We don't write here about the properties of different sorts of marbles used in decoration, or the particular changing designs of the trains, do we? Still, it is a work done by someone, so I added an introductory phrase explaining why does this section exist. However, I recommend moving it elsewhere. --Compay 21:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an important part of history of the Metro, we should not overlook that.--Kuban Cossack 22:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And also, to potential contributors: try using more credible sources then www.metro.ru. Lebedev's site is not wery encyclopedic. --Compay 21:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did you see Metro.ru on this site? --Kuban Cossack 22:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks very familiar to some inquiries made on metro.ru, on languages in post-soviet metros.--Compay 23:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The language issues chapter is based mostly on what I wrote for the Ukrainian language article some time in 2005. The UA L was largely "altered" following the arrival of one "prolific" editor and I hadn't had a chance to undo much of the damage there to this day, especially that the article got some good edits since that time and it would take a hell lot of work to blend everything together. At the same time, I do agree that it is overdone here. I would be very careful though on what to add to Ukrainization, because that article already gets attacked on a regular basis although it is one of the best referenced articles I wrote to this day. Besides, part of this Metro issue belongs to Russification, not all was Ukrainization, you know. Maybe a separate article? But I see no large harm in keeping it for now. If others disagree, feel free to spin it off to something like Ukrainian and Russian languages in Kiev Metro. I will add more comments on other issues later. --Irpen 22:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I only see that it could be useful as an example. Maybe Practical Russification and Ukrainization? I dont't know so far. --Compay 23:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we keep it then, at least for now. There is no argument that the facts are right. Purging the info without moving it anywhere is usually a bad idea. Work gets lost. --Irpen 23:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Kiev Metro - Chinese Wikipedia version

Hi, I'm a Chinese student who is studying abroad in Kiev. Currently making up the article about Kiev Metro in Chinese Wikipedia and translating the vital information from English version. I have several of question wanna ask to help refining the article. --Sameboat 14:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Platform architecture

I'm having a hard time to define slavic metro platform architecture. Can someone detail the design between different stations or just make up another Wiki article to introduce?

[10]. Hope you read Russian...--Kuban Cossack 15:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Side platform?

How many Side platform do exist in Kiev Metro? As far as I saw there's only Dnipro (Kiev Metro) does apply this type of platform.

and Vyrlitsa as well, opened on 8 March 2006. --Kuban Cossack 15:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Type of car

Another information I hope to add which is lacking in source. Which type of providing electricity to power a railway is applied? (Third Rail?) And Which type of multiple-unit is carriage of Kiev Metro?

Third Contact rail which is separate from the main track.--Kuban Cossack 15:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Metro Pass

Where can passanger buy the Metro Pass outside of station cashier? I only know that student can buy it from their school/institute. And what's the official name of "Metro Pass" in Ukrainian language?

Don't live in Kiev, do not know. --Kuban Cossack 15:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Kuban, I'm currently studying music composition in Russian language. That website is a great help. As you stated that you're not living in Kiev then I would like to provide my recent information about Kiev Metro which lack in English version. The installment of the smart-chip card reader is nearly complete on the existent (entrance) turnstiles of every station. Since I'm from Hong Kong, I prefer to add the line that the smart-chip card system can refer to HK's Octopus Card. -- Sameboat 20:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Useless External Link?

The article on the Kiev Metro contains a lot of information about the history of the Metro system, its development etc. This is very interesting for Metro enthusiasts, but not much use for the vast majority of people who want to know about Kiev's main public transport system ie. people who intend to use it as a mode of transport.

The maps in this article and most others on the internet (including the external links from here) show the Metro stations and which line they are on. Is this information actually useful for a person travelling to Kiev for the first time. I would argue no.

People want to know which Metro station is nearest to a certain attraction, hotel, restaurant etc. I specifically created a map that showed such info, because I don't believe such a map exists elsewhere on the internet. It is practical, useful information. I added an external link to my map and it was removed - being described as 'useless'.

I disagree completely. Most people who intend to use the Metro system will be rather interested in this type of practical information, rather than its history, language issues etc. It's valuable, unique content and deserves inclusion.

Not everybody is a metro enthusiast, some people just want to use it to get from A to B.

Your thoughts please.

Kievboy 23:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not wikitravel. There is a big difference. --Kuban Cossack 00:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

When you deleted the link your reason for doing so was that is was 'useless', not because you thought it belonged on Wikitravel. Just because content is suitable for Wikitravel, does not render it ineligible for Wikipedia. You still haven't answered why it is 'useless'.

Kievboy 01:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, an encyclopedic article is not meant to be a travel guide. A full map of the lines as they pass under the city will be useful, but what you have is just some dots on yellow background? Links on the other hand must provide information and references. --Kuban Cossack 16:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Map of lines as they pass under the city is useful. I've added it.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say I have 'just some dots on yellow background'. The background isn't yellow and never has been. All the 'dots' as you call them are labelled with Metro station name, attraction name etc. If you click on any name you are taken to the relevant page on the site. I think this is fully referenced. None of the other maps on the external links in this article do this.

Kievboy 23:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So far your page has little information on the Metro, making it, I am sorry, useless as a reference. The external links must be relevant to Sugar not to the recipes that use it. Like I said before the map you have is for wikitravel, not for here. Remember this is an article about the Metro, not about where the stations are (and actually there are errors on their locations already btw - second vestibule of Kreshchatik on Institutskaya ulitsa for e.g). Also if you care to look into my station artilces, you will find that I give Google maps link to all of their locations. --Kuban Cossack 11:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You said it would be useful if I showed the lines. I added them. Now you say it's not useful. You've just contradicted yourself. I would be really grateful if you could explain why yesterday you said it would be useful, and now today it's 'useless'.

How stupid of me to think that people wanting to know about the Metro, might actually want to use it.

Much more useful to the average English-speaking user, for which this guide is intended, are the Russian and Ukrainian links provided. Yes, I'm sure we all find those VERY useful.

And I deliberately left out the second entrance to Kreshcatik on Institutksaya for simplicity. It's not an error.

Kievboy 20:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Types of Stations

The paragraph under "Lines and Stations" that describes the types of stations is very confusing. Does anyone know what all of those types represent? There are no definitions, and the paragraph is not in plain English. Some of the types are linked to other articles, other types are not. Can someone clarify this paragraph so that the average Joe can understand it? Thanks! -Milkncookie 20:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually there| is a heading on Stations further up on the talk page...

Nonetheless although ex-USSR metros have a fashion for making sure that no two stations are the same, and often doing so in a rich decorative matter, on the technical level there are more or less standard designs for them. First of all essentially there are two types, those that are above surface and those below (underground).

Of the former there are further two types, stations that are on surface level, and those that are elevated (flyover) ones. On how they are technically built then its really hard to generalise from there as on most surface stations, their design is part of the architecture...

The real standarnisation come for the underground stations. First of all is the depth of the station, as this plays a key role in the station's appearance. There are those that are deep level and shallow. Shallow stations are built using the cut and cover method whilst deep ones are built by gradual underground excavation.

For the former, there are three common designs, pillar, flat and vault. Each ultimately representing on how the cealing will look like.

1. For example Borispolskaya is a vault design,
2. whilst Beresteiskaya is a standard Pillar (trispan) design and Vyrlitsa and Akademgorodok are variations of the design, the former being a side-platform bispan and the latter being a balcony trispan.
3. The flat type stations, are those with flat ceilings but with no pillar supports. Volzhskaya in Moscow is an example of this.

Deep level stations fall into three categories as well:Pylon, Column and Single Vault.

1. Stations in the latter category are visually the same as their shallow counterparts, but because all deep stations are vaulted, this one is called a single vault, and the name is then borrowed for their shallow counterparts.
2. The Pylon stations are the most common of the deep ones and are built by having the central hall tube separate from the Platform ones, and then interlinked with each other via passageways that leave Pylons. In Kiev there are countless examples Lukyanovskaya is one of them.
3. Column stations are different because instead of pylons they have ... columns, and are built by having the tubes of the platforms and central hall overlap, and the columns holding their weight. In Kiev the most visual example is Zolotye Vorota.

Of course I did miss a few types, out but such exist in singular types, for the purpose of Kiev that summarises it, hope it was helpful. --Kuban Cossack 02:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Rapid transit in the former Soviet Union

Hello. What is the significance of relation of Ukrainian rapid transit systems and the fact that Ukraine used to be part of Soviet Union? It seems illogical, is there a portal (or how do you call these things) for rapid systems on territories of former Roman Empire or Austro-Hungarian Empire? Because new stations and systems, such as the Dnipropetrovsk or the Russian Kazan subway system, have no historical relation to USSR. I understand that someone put a lot of effort into creating this, but it seems like a waste of space and an unnecessary reminder of the Soviet occupation, which is seen by many Ukrainians as tragic. It would make much more sense to create a banner/portal (again, no idea how these things are called) of, for instance, eastern European rapid transport systems, or simply European rapid transport systems, maybe even Eurasian if you wanted to include all ex-Soviet systems.

I doubt that any change will be made based on my comment, especially seeing as how one of the main contributors to Ukrainian subway systems articles (which I am grateful for) is a Russian member with a picture of stalin on his profile. However, I think that this opinion deserves be heard anyway. I will not try to edit it, so don't worry about that. --Sylius 20:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No it is not illogical, first of all there is a great amount of technical and planning details that unite the systems much more than politics. Second of all both Dnepropetrovsk and Kazan have been under construction and certainly planning since the Soviet times. Waste of space? There really is no waste of space. Finally we have Armenians, Azeris, Georgians and Belarusians who never raised the issue of the template, not to say the numerous Russian users and...yes, Ukrainians. WRT latter need I remind you that under Soviet "occupation" Ukraine was the founding republic of the USSR! As for tragic...well my wife is from Rivne, her parents do not see it as tragic. Neither does anyone save some hard-heads in Kiev and the Galician appendix. I thank you for the gratitude, but do realise that Stalin is on my userpage for a reason and reed the disclaimer...oh welcome to wikipedia. --Kuban Cossack 21:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as the technical and planning details, I'm sure they're as similar as those in Sofia, for instance. I understand that most people will not find it important or offensive, but many will. Also, don't divide us by regions, as there are victims of Soviet oppressions in every of Ukraine's oblasts, including the Crimean Republic. I did read the disclaimer on why you have stalin up there, but I don't approve of these images of neither stalin nor hitler. My direct relatives have suffered from both. The reason I explained my opinion here is to ask you or anyone else involved, to please try to leave USSR where it belongs, in history, and think of other suitable names for future templates. As I have said, there are many alternative names. Thanks. --Sylius 00:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Technical details first: Eastern European metros might be related, but alas a closer inspection will show otherwise. Warsaw Metro uses a completely Polish innovation of building subsurface stations, not found anywhere else. Prague Metro, with the exception of the station Anděl (formerly Moskevská)... there really is nothing to go on there, layout planning was done prior to the war, Czech engineers built the system...really nothing to go on. Same goes for Sofia, which was opened in 1998. Budapest Metro is even more authentic. However the biggest point, none of those four systems were ever in the Soviet times, and two of them became operational after the USSR ceased to exist. Collectively, their gauge is standard European, unlike the ex-USSR metros, who use the Russian wide gauge. Speaking of the rolling stock yes, they do use the same models, although both Warsaw and Prague have procured newer cars that were built elsewhere.

Politics now... sigh... Let's begin with the opinion polls throughout Ukraine: it already is very much divided into regions, so don't blame me. Suffering: if you are referring to the Golodomor, than please realise that it is by far not limited to the Ukraine, but to the whole USSR, some regions, like the Kurgan Oblast, which saw cannibalism result from the lack of food there. My Kuban was hit no less, and I do not even want to mention what happened to the Don region, or Northern Kazakhstan. Yet for some reason only Ukraine seems to raise specific issues (down to administrative fines for denial of Holodomor being a Ukrainian genocide...). World War II: I can publish authentic photographs from Rivne taken in 1939 and in 1944 when the Red Army liberated the city and just how large the crowd was to welcome it. Oh and wrt Crimea, then it became part of Ukraine only after 1954, and to the best of my knowledge, NOBODY was suffering there until of course 1991. Although really when that time came and we measure the suffering, then it was not limited to Crimea, or to Ukraine, but to the whole Union: Nine armed conflicts, mass emigration, apartheid regimes in Baltic States, mass unemployment, mass nationalism and ethnic hatred, mass un-proportional demographic changes, fall of living standards. Loss of things that were not found anywhere else: free education, free medical service, free leisure and sport. (Do I need to tell how every single Olympic games we took more gold medals than everyone else put together?). Like Putin said: If you want the USSR back you have no brains. If you can't be proud of being born there you have no heart (Do watch it all the way to the end.)--Kuban Cossack 11:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you about who suffered more or less, or when, the fact that you are denying that for millions of Ukrainians USSR was a tragic experience, shows that you are just looking for excuses to ignore my polite request. I hope my impression isn't true. It is a matter of common sense that there are those who think USSR was a wonderful experience and those who regard it as tragic for Ukrainians. Both of these groups are not marginal, are represented in every city and village with different proportions. A picture from Rivne that shows people being liberated from one evil regime and welcoming aggressors of another will not change the fact that if you go to Rivne, you will find thousands of people who will say that Soviet regime was a tragic experience to them and their loved ones. You will also find those who will say that it was wonderful, but why insult the rest of us? --Sylius 16:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

To fully and collectively represent the USSR as an evil empire and to destroy templates that unite what good it did show me just how much disrespect you have to the people who write those articles. Instead of helping out, improving them, finding images you are attacking a template. On top of that you should realise there is a WP:SOVMETRO project one that was created by a UKRAINIAN user (and me only assisting). Last but not least the Red Army was never aggresive towards Ukrainians. Considering the amount of Ukrainians that fought against the Germans. From the simple soldiers to the USSR's top ace Ivan Kozhedub, a partisan leader Sidor Kovpak and even a Marshal of the Soviet Union Rodion Malinovsky. Your arrogance to this part of history as something that instead of being cherished and held dear to be forgotten is just stupid, and it does Ukraine no credit. We Russians also suffered during the Soviet times, yet we seem to be proud of our Soviet History, although you are right there are of course groups that think otherwise, except every May 9th they are nonetheless remain marginal, just like in Ukraine. In any case your argument against the template has no real value... and it was a big mistake to add politics on it. If you want to improve the articles...feel free to do so. --Kuban Cossack 17:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I told you, they are not marginal. In Russia too I hope. I watched the video that you added, which started and ended with a picture of stalin. So clearly, you are a stalinist. A man due to whom more ukrainians were killed than from tatar-mongols, nazis and all other invaders combined. Shame on you and every other stalinist that still lives in Russia, Ukraine or any other country. My arrogance? I merely politely asked to consider alternative names in the future for these types of templates, but you went on with your soviet propaganda instead, and turned to an aggressive tone with me. Типичный сталинист, Бог вам судья. --Sylius 17:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ладно скажу вым открытом текстом, я не Сталинист но тем не менее родившийся в СССР плохого о нем не помню, как кстати моя жена, особенно на фоне того, что было после распада СССР. Далее вам такой вопрос, вы накой сюда пришли, помогать проекту и ставить палки в колеса другим? Во-первых зря один на шаблон напали, надо на весь WP:SOVMETRO. Но если в серьезно хотите его накрыть, то учтите ваш детский каприз по нелюбви к Советскому Союзу серьезным никто принимать не станет а вы только еще сильнее облажаетесь, особенно когда меня поддержут как минимум три Украинца. Более того стоит вам напомнить, что проект был создан ради метро а не СССР. Во всех метрополитенах б.СССР действительно очень много общего от архитектурного разнообразия мраморных залов до подвижного состава. Подобное немогло пройти мимо людей, и ВСЕ кто поддержали этот проект (почитайте насколько многонациональным была его поддержка, помимо вышеупомянутых экс-Советских национальностей выделяються лица Чешской, Голландской, Англиской и Американской) решили, как вы варазились, оставить СССР в истории и все силы кинуть на метро.

PS В этом фильме ничего плохого и пропаганды нету, это действительно живая правда СССР была могучия держава, а лицо на начале клипа далеко не Сталин... Советую вам историю почитать, и из надежного источника а не из свидомо-националистической литературы. И наконец Брежнев был Украинцем... --Kuban Cossack 06:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this is unnecessary. Please cool down. Let's use this page to discuss the article improvement. Let's discuss politics at the userpages and even there at minimum. --Irpen 08:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

На такой тон отвечать - себя не уважать.--Sylius 01:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Kiev/Kyiv

The Kiev article mentions both names, so should this article. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It may but not for the reasons you gave. Kiev and Kyiv are both correct English versions of the city's name with one being primary in WP according to the current state of the naming conventions. We do not use both names in every article where the city name is mentioned. Mentioning the secondary name, along with the primary one, needs to have a reason. For instance, Kharkiv is now the primary English name. It does not mean that Kharkov (also the correct English name but secondary for us), should be mentioned in every article where the primary name is mentioned. So, we can mention Kyiv here once, if there is a compelling reason, but not to clutter article with double names here and there. The Ukrainian name of the system is not "Київ метро", but "Київський метрополітен". There are two ways to render this into English, as a transliteration of the name, which would be "Kyivskyi metropoliten" or the translation which would be "Kiev metro". "Kyiv metro" is none of the above. --Irpen 23:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about depth of stations

I've been told the Kyiv/Kiev metro system is the deepest in the world, with an 800m escalator at one of the city centre stations. Anyone know if that's correct, and if it is maybe it should be mentioned in the article? Moyabrit 15:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

800 metres seems very doubtful to me. Kiev Metro does have the deepest station in the world Arsenalnaya, at 102 metres. Saint Petersburg Metro is the deepest with its maximum depth at 105 metres I believe. --Kuban Cossack 16:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Kuban kazak, there's no way any subway station would be 800m deep. That would just be pointless and incredibly inefficient. Bogdan 20:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Metro vs Metropoliten

I must say that it is wrong to use the term metropoliten wrt connatation of the article. What is this article about? The company that runs the metro? Or the Metro itself? It is absoloutely true that the name of the company would be Kyivsky Metropoliten, but is the name of the system in Ukrainian not Kyivske Metro? Is the latter only a colloqial term, that is more used? I think that the lead should have the name Metro, not Metropoliten, with the latter already used latter in the body of the article to describe the system. Anyone who disagrees please say so.--Kuban Cossack 11:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, as far as I know, "metro" itself is an abbreviation of "metropoliten". — Alex^(U|C|E) 11:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The etymology of the term is indeed such, but Metro is not the same as metropoliten in the modern sense, and in our case we have two definitions, that effectively draw a thick line between the two terms. --Kuban Cossack 12:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

See as well here and Ministry of Transport of Ukraine (one who own 2 our of 3 currently working rapid transits). They clearly specify that metropolitan is type of transport - not simply name of enterprises. Like here Laws of Ukraine. GOVERNMENT PROGRAM No. 257: On building and development of network of metropolitan in 2006-2010. Adopted on 2006-03-07. (Ukrainian): Metropolitan is ecologically clean, rapid, comfort and safe type of passenger transport with highest transportation capacity. --TAG 13:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Metropoliten it is. Not that I mind, but I thought it be better to keep the name shorter. --Kuban Cossack 16:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think if you ask native English speakers the meaning of "Kiev Metropolitan", they would either mention the Kiev urban area (city plus suburban), or Kiev Archbishop. Metropoliten is a similar German word. Neither of them commonly stand for rapid transit system. In fact, it would be interesting to learn why the underground passenger transit system became known in Russian/Ukrainian as метрополитен. (French, may be? Paris Métro) But based on what is known to me so far, I would favor the usage of "metro" instead of "metropolitan"/"metropoliten" with respect to the transit system. --Novelbank 18:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was the Metropolitan Line in London from the Metropolitan Railway that gave the name its world connatation of being used for rapid transit. --Kuban Cossack 19:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The article in Russian wiki adds to the story by telling that the word метрополитен came to Russian through French. After the reading I still think that the article should be called "Kiev metro". "Kyivskyi Metropoliten" is merely a transliteration from Ukrainian, and as such could be mentioned once. --Novelbank 23:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)