Jump to content

Talk:Kadiivka

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

Dubious claim

[edit]

The article mentions that on 22 July 2014 a rally was held that demanded "pro-Russian separatists" to leave the town. The source for this claim is an Ukranian propaganda website that calls the pro-Russian faction "terrorists". A source using this kind of language seems dubious. Has this been reported by media not involved in the conflict? — 37 (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the Ukrainian news agency Ukrinform, citing a government official.--82.169.68.56 (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The name

[edit]

Since on May 12, 2016 Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada restored the name Kadiyivka, isn't it necessary to rename the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.179.48.60 (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Why should we care about the decision of the Verkhovna Rada? This is not a Wikipedia policy to follow their decisions.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about Wikipedia rule WP:MODERNPLACENAME? Even if you don't like this decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.179.62.250 (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a RFC below to generate comments and consensus. Doremo (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Should "Stakhanov, Ukraine" be moved to "Kadiyivka"?

[edit]

This RfC was superseded by #Requested move 19 December 2018.

Cunard (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article, "Stakhanov, Ukraine" (the name used from 1978 to 2016), be moved to "Kadiyivka" (the name restored on May 12, 2016)? — Doremo (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. For starters - lets be clear about the location - this city is within Luhansk People's Republic and not under control of Ukraine since 2014 or so (as a side note - there may be merit to mark DNR/LNR controlled cities not with (, Ukraine) but with (, Donbass) or some other qualifier that makes clear this situation - specifying Ukraine is misleading in regards to the actual control on the ground). While Kadiyivka does seem to be used by the Kyiv Post, it is not used in international reporting - e.g. AFP, Der Spiegel are using Stakhanov - as are, I would presume, the local residents of Stakhanov. Thus - the WP:COMMONNAME in English is still Stakhanov. I will note that COMMONNAME trumps government fiat even in cases in which the government actually controls the territory - e.g. Czech Republic is not Czechia (see Name of the Czech Republic for an overview) - since in English this simply hasn't caught on. Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, has been discussed many times. This is not the most common English name. Ukraine does not have control over the territory and has no authority on deciding which name the locality uses.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Icewhiz. We should follow the convention used by international RS that report in English. signed, Rosguill talk 18:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a WP:RFC matter, see WP:RM. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 19 December 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stakhanov, Ukraine → Kadiyivka – 1) The town was renamed Kadiyivka on May 12, 2016 by the Ukrainian government [1] and the article states that the town is in Ukraine; 2) per WP:MODERNPLACENAME, Stakhanov is a historical name and Kadiyivka is the modern name; in addition, reliable English-language sources are using the name Kadiyivka, including 3) various media (UNHR, Interfax-Ukraine, Kyiv Post) or the variant spelling Kadiivka (Radio Free Europe, Relief web); and 4) new publications (Oxford Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names). Doremo (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. For starters - lets be clear about the location - this city is within Luhansk People's Republic and not under control of Ukraine since 2014 or so (as a side note - there may be merit to mark DNR/LNR controlled cities not with (, Ukraine) but with (, Donbass) or some other qualifier that makes clear this situation - specifying Ukraine is misleading in regards to the actual control on the ground). While Kadiyivka does seem to be used by the Kyiv Post, it is not used in international reporting - e.g. AFP, Der Spiegel are using Stakhanov - as are, I would presume, the local residents of Stakhanov. Thus - the WP:COMMONNAME in English is still Stakhanov. I will note that COMMONNAME trumps government fiat even in cases in which the government actually controls the territory - e.g. Czech Republic is not Czechia (see Name of the Czech Republic for an overview) - since in English this simply hasn't caught on. Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comment "not used in international reporting" is inaccurate, given the usage by the UNHCR and Radio Free Europe cited in the RM. The part with "I would presume, the local residents" may fall under WP:OR; in any case, it has not been verified. Doremo (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • International NEWORGs (e.g. AFP, Der Spiegel) are still using Stakhanov in English (as well as lack of sources stating LNR changed the name and pro-Donbass sources such as [2] using it) is a rather strong indication that Ukraine's decision has been ignored by the locals who are not governed by Ukraine. My comment above was in relation to the prior RfC - and not to your newly formulated RM. In regards to your media claims - reliefweb.int is not international media. RFEL is a propaganda source - and it doesn't use Kadiivka itself, but rather quotes "Vitalie Zara was a citizen of Moldova who had been working for the Luhansk Monitoring Team since July 2015, serving in Sievierodonetsk, Luhansk, and Kadiivka, the organization said in a posting on Facebook on January 19." the SMM OSCE monitoring team (same as reliefweb). Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The comment regarding "international reporting" remains inaccurate regardless of whether it's in relation to the RFC or RM because the name is used in the material by the UNHCR and Radio Free Europe. It is also inaccurate that the name Kadiivka is used in a quote in the Radio Free Europe article (it is indirect speech, modified to an unknown degree from what the OSCE posted). English usage (the issue at stake) in Radio Free Europe cannot simply be dismissed as an unreliable "propaganda source". Doremo (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, has been discussed many times. This is not the most common English name. Ukraine does not have control over the territory and has no authority on deciding which name the locality uses.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide a link for the claim "has been discussed many times"; there is no record of the discussion on this talk page (perhaps the name Kadiyivka was discussed elsewhere). The name used by a rebel group has dubious relevance. For example, ISIS renamed Deir ez-Zor to Wilayet al-Khair when the Syrian government did not control the territory,[3] but there was no move to use the rebel name for the WP article based on the central government's lack of control/authority in the territory. Similarly, if the Grozny article (created in 2002) had existed earlier, it probably would not have been named Djohar despite the Russian government's lack of control/authority in the territory. Doremo (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Specifically Stakhanov has not been discussed (though moved several times I believe without discussion), but other towns in a similar situation have been discussed. We are not talking about DPR renaming the town, we are talking about the Ukrainian government renaming the town it does not control. Pretty much nobody uses this name, except for the Ukrainian government and the media either affiliating with it or supporting it up to tiny details (for example, RFL does not even use the term DPR, and when it does it takes it in quotation marks).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      I probably should extend my comment. At some point before 2014, there was a discussion concerning names of Ukrainian localities, which I will now have difficulties to find, but pretty much everybody active in the area will confirm that this is the current status. The outcome of the discussion was than most of Ukrainian localities, including for example such big cities as Kharkiv, do not have independent established names in English. Therefore articles on all these localities should use romanization of their Ukrainian names. This obviously included localities in Crimea and Easter Ukraine as well. That included also Stakhanov. The only exceptions which were identified were Kiev, Odessa, and Chernobil (later Gurzuf was also moved via a RM). The names of the articles still follow this pattern, for example, Bilohirsk has never been renamed to Belogorsk. Now, after the Verkhovna Rada renamed cities conform with the decommuniation law, a RM was open about those which were controlled by the government and these were renamed. The argument was that the population is now going to use the new names, and the move is justified. It was explicitly stated that the move is not justified for localities not controlled by the government, since the fact that the Verkhovna Rada renamed them did not affect the usage of their names in English. Indeed, none of them has ever been moved.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Icewhiz. We should follow the convention used by international RS that report in English. signed, Rosguill talk 18:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comments copied from "RFC: Should "Stakhanov, Ukraine" be moved to "Kadiyivka"?" section above.Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. The town is located within the internationally-recognized borders of Ukraine and should not be forced to be listed under its Russian name since it is not located within the borders of Russia. A similar situation exists concerning the localities in the internationally-unrecognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. A key city in Northern Cyprus, for example, is listed in Wikipedia under the English transliteration of its Greek name, Kyrenia, although its Turkish-speaking residents know it as Girne.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a Russian name. This is a Ukrainian name. The city was renamed by the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR, and all Ukrainian sources used "Stakhanov" as a name. Russia never renamed the city, and let us not consider false arguments.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My above support still stands but, in response, the portion of the text which states, "should not be forced to be listed under its Russian name since it is not located within the borders of Russia", should be amended to, "should not be forced to be listed under its Soviet name since the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991". Many Soviet place names in Russia, especially those named after Soviet-era figures, were returned to their former names, most prominently Leningrad‎ →‎ Saint Petersburg, and Wikipedia's main title headers have reflected such renamings. The same right to rename Soviet-era place names should be respected as far as Ukrainian renamings are concerned.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would the difference in situation - in Northern Cyprus the names prior to 1974 were in the Greek form - the Turks subsequently changed them. In this case - the pre-existing name (and per Ukraine - also until 2016 - two years after Ukraine lost control) was Stakhanov. Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The argument about using St. Petersburg instead of Leningrad is neither here nor there because St. Petersburg is the common name in both English and Russian. No one is using Leningrad anymore. It's not about whether a country has a "right" to rename a city or not, it's about which name is used by reliable sources (and thus which name will be more recognizable and useful to the average English reader). signed, Rosguill talk 18:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Leningrad → Saint Petersburg renaming was too easily within reach as an example and, while it may be the most recognizable replacement of a Soviet-era luminary's city name, it also represents a problematic example in that it is an English exonym. The city's Russian name, as transliterated into English, is Sankt-Peterburg, while in the U.S., "St. Petersburg" is the form used for the city in Florida.
There are, however, numerous other examples of places in Russia, which carried names of those designated as luminaries during the Soviet-era, and which were subsequently restored to their earlier place names around the period of (or following) the Soviet Union's dissolution. None of these other city names have English exonyms and their English names are the transliterated Russian names: Andropov (named after Yuri Andropov) → Rybinsk; Brezhnev (Leonid Brezhnev) → Naberezhnye Chelny; Chernenko (Konstantin Chernenko) → Sharypovo; Gorky (Maxim Gorky) → Nizhny Novgorod; Ustinov (Dmitry Ustinov) → Izhevsk; Kalinin (Mikhail Kalinin) → Tver; Kaliningrad (Mikhail Kalinin) → Korolyov; Kuybyshev (Valerian Kuybyshev) → Bolgar; Ordzhonikidze (Sergo Ordzhonikidze) → Vladikavkaz, Sverdlovsk (Yakov Sverdlov) → Yekaterinburg, to name but ten.
Finally, it may be noted that Alexey Stakhanov was not a Ukrainian, having been born in the Russian village of Lugovaya. Moreover, every former Soviet republic, from Armenia and Azerbaijan to Ukraine and Uzbekistan had place names that commemorated Soviet-era people and has replaced those place names with earlier historical or new names. Wikipedia has been indicating such renamings in the main title headers of those places' articles and there is no reason for Wikipedia to make an exception by denying this particular Ukrainian city its proper and official name.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 10:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this city was not controlled by Ukraine when it made its contested (by the residents - who speak Russian, not Ukranian) decision. A more proper analog would be Stepanakert (breakaway republic of Artskah).Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a source for the claim that the residents are contesting the restoration of the name Kadiyivka. Doremo (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should be further noted that in Russia itself, Stakhanov had come to be seen as an outdated relic of the Stalinist era well before the dissolution of the Soviet Union. A settlement near Moscow was named for him in 1935, but twelve years later, in 1947, during the lifetime of both Stalin and Stakhanov, it was renamed Zhukovsky. The Ukrainian city of Kadiyivka was renamed for Stakhanov as late as 1978, thirteen years before the dissolution of the Soviet Union and, thirty-eight years after that renaming, the Ukrainian legislature has returned it to its original name. There is no good reason why Wikipedia should retain the thirty-eight-year-old city name of a Stalinist relic when the city's actual restored name has centuries of history supporting it.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 5 January 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. I find a clear consensus to move this article. (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives - talk - edits 04:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stakhanov, Ukraine → Kadiivka – Kadiivka is the official name for this city in Ukraine. It is internationally recognised as part of this country regardless of what some others may say. The last RM was in December 2018, and a lot has changed in English-language sources regarding Ukrainian place names. In Kadiivka's case, the official name appears to be more common since then.

Searching "Kadiivka Ukraine" and clicking on the news section on Google, I get articles for several notable English-speaking media outlets. I will give examples from all of those which have Wikipedia pages in the first two pages of results. There is the BBC [4], Anadolu Agency [5], Ukrinform (obviously) [6], Yahoo! News [7], The Guardian [8], Al Jazeera [9], Telewizja Polska [10], The Moscow Times [11], The Globe and Mail [12], Daily Express [13] and France 24 [14]. 11 (10 excluding Ukrainian state-owned Ukrinform) notable media outlets use Kadiivka clearly and directly to refer to the city.

As for "Stakhanov Ukraine", there are some as well, but they do not give relevance to the name itself. See Al Jazeera ("a hotel in Stakhanov – the Russian name for Kadiivka – was destroyed"; Kadiivka is first mentioned before) [15], Yahoo! News ("in Kadiyivka (Stakhanov), Luhansk Oblast") [16], CNN ("Stakhanov" is only mentioned when citing Russian state-owned TASS, Kadiivka is used two times earlier in normal writing) [17], the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations (no comment) [18], The Moscow Times (only when citing LPR puppet Leonid Pasechnik) [19], GlobalSecurity.org [20], The New York Times (I can't read the article, but I could see from Google News that it refers to it as "Using the old Soviet name for the city [that is, Kadiivka was mentioned earlier], Stakhanov") [21], EA WorldView (again only citing TASS) [22] and Al Arabiya ("in the city of Kadiivka (Stakhanov)") [23]. I got 9 media outlets, but only one actually used Stakhanov to refer to the city (GlobalSecurity.org, apart of the Permanent Mission of Russia to the UN). Obviously, Google results may vary for people, depending on their country, search and other factors, but the trend that Kadiivka is currently more used in recent English-speaking sources is fairly evident, and I invite any editors to attempt to prove otherwise through the methods they may prefer.

We can consider other websites to discuss WP:COMMONNAME, such as Google Scholar or Google Books. However, this is difficult as "Stakhanov" refers to a multitude of other things. Even the search "stakhanov" ukraine (since 2019) barely gives results referring to the city [24]. Personally, I deem it difficult to employ these two websites for this RM, so I will not take them into consideration; other editors here may do so if they manage to find a way to accurately provide information on the way this city is now called in English-language sources there.

I will add that through this move, the disambiguation ", Ukraine" in the title will not be necessary anymore, which is nice in my opinion. I also want to state that when Novohrad-Volynskyi was renamed to Zviahel last year, the move was carried out immediately. This city is in western Ukraine. For some reason this did not take place here, even though the name was changed back in 2016. Some of the cited arguments in the last RM was that "Ukraine does not control this town". However, Kadiivka stands firmly within Ukraine's internationally recognized borders. I see no reason why we should apply different treatments for cities ultimately in Ukraine. And we surely owe illegal imperialists no leverage in Wikipedia. So I request that this article be renamed to the city's legal and official name. Super Ψ Dro 01:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm flexible on this issue. I will point out that the opening statement of "Kadiivka is the official name for this city" and it is "internationally recognised as part of this country" means absolutely nothing. All that really matters is what are the most English language sources calling it and is there enough evidence to change what we have. The BBC is using both names depending on whom is writing the article. Same with NBC, and the Kyiv Post. Britannica also uses Stakhanov. I do think that more sources today are using some variant of Kadiyivka/Kadiivka or sometimes Kadiyivka (Stakhnov). Britannica doesn't even mention that the spelling of Kadiivka exists so if it is deemed movable it should be moved to the most common spelling of Kadiyivka. The fact that right now that very common spelling of the city is missing from prose is an issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Britannica traditionally uses British-style romanization (BSI or BGN/PCGN, not sure which), and not necessarily most common or official spelling. The article was updated in 2008,[25] before the official romanization rules were finalized!  —Michael Z. 04:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But Kadiyivka is used in many sources not just Britannica. And there is no "official spelling" in English. Where did you get that? We go by common spelling here at Wikipedia. What Ukraine officially calls it is useless to us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kadiivka has 37 results in Google Scholar [26], while Kadyivka has 22 [27]. Kadiivka is more common. Super Ψ Dro 09:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is an official Latin-alphabet spelling of all Ukrainian place names determined by the Ukrainian national romanization system. No, the spelling that is used in five times as many sources in Google News results is not “useless to us.”  —Michael Z. 14:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as official name since 2016. Doremo (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no English official name of the town. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I said. Kadiivka (or Kadiyivka; it doesn't matter to me which transliteration is used) is the official/current name according to the country the town is located in. Doremo (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then per that, Wikipedia does not use a name/spelling because it's an official name in that country. Wikipedia uses the name most sources use (common name). Now Kadiyivka may well be the most common name, but it should be based on that fact, not on what a foreign country wants us to use (and Ukraine uses a completely different alphabet anyway). Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an official Latin-alphabet spelling. See Romanization of Ukrainian#Ukrainian National transliteration.  —Michael Z. 14:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom—blindlynx 03:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Stakhanov/Kadiivka belongs to a large group of cities which Ukraine renamed while not in control of, and the population continues to use the old name. What is relevant for us is indeed not how the population calls it but how the reliable source call it, and this coverage is extremely fluent. The only thing consistent are English-speaking Ukrainian sources which call the city Kadiivka (quite understandably), but all other coverage is pretty much random. My suggestion would be, not only with Kadiivka, but also with other cities / settlements in the same position, is to wait until the situation stabilizes - either Ukraine takes it under control, or a demarcation line would be established, similarly to North-South Korea, or (highly unlikely) the area would be recognized as part of Russia - and then take a decision for all of them. Until then, coverage will remain fluent and sometimes will reverse - for example, I see that now some non-Russian media use Artyomovsk instead of Bakhmut, though Ukraine has been all the time in control of the city, and last year nobody would call it Artyomovsk. We do not want to move articles back and forth depending on the details of media coverage.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When a place is renamed, what happens fits the simplest explanation: the new name’s usage rises slowly or quickly, until it is predominant.
    I see no evidence of fluidity or reversals. I don’t see evidence that the population uses the old name. I see no rationale to make any WP:CRYSTAL assumptions about future North Koreas. I see no evidence of any unconventional consistency in “English-speaking Ukrainian sources.”
    Bakhmut is a different place with its own usage, but it is not what at all what is described above. According to Google News Search, in the last 24 hours 67 sources used Bakhmut[28] and 2 used Artyomovsk,[29] both being direct quotations of a Russian criminal leader, and both glossing it as the “Soviet name” of Bakhmut.[30][31] So today, editorial-voice usage of Bakhmut–Artyomovsk is 67 to zero, or 100%.
    Similarly, in the last 7 days Kadiivka 5,[32] Kadiyivka 0,[33] Stakhanov 0[34] (1 reference to a historical person, not the city). One hundred percent.  —Michael Z. 19:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    5 to 0 is not reliable statistics. Any person with a math education knows this. This argument is just void. Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so sure about that, but don’t let it distract from my main point: your arguments are just void.  —Michael Z. 19:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid at this point whatever I could respond you would label by "picking a fight", so I better save my arguments for the Arbitration Committee. Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the menu doesn’t offer it, but one can type the date parameter in the search field.
    Let’s look at the fifteen results for Stakhanov:
    1. “Stakhanov – the Russian name for Kadiivka”[35]
    2. quoted tweet: “occupied Kadiivka (Stakhanov)”[36]
    3. “Kadiyivka (Stakhanov)”[37]
    4. Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United States: “Stakhanov”[38]
    5. “Kadiivka, which Russians call Stakhanov”[39]
    6. “occupied Kadiyivka (Stakhanov)”[40]
    7. “‘Early this morning, the town of Stakhanov . . .’ the Russian-installed leader of Luhansk Leonid Pasechnik said”[41]
    8. “Russian State outlet TASS acknowledged that a hotel in Stakhanov – the Russian name for Kadiivka”[42]
    9. “Stakhanov”[43]
    10. Not a reference to the city: “Aleksey Stakhanov, Soviet miner and pioneer of Stakhanovism”[44]
    11. “citing the mayor’s office in the town of Kadiivka, which Russia calls Stakhanov”[45]
    12. “the city of Kadiivka . . . The Russian state news agency Tass reported in a Telegram post that a HIMARS rocket had destroyed a hotel close to the central market but did not mention the Wagner Group. Using the old Soviet name for the city, Stakhanov, in the self-proclaimed Luhansk People’s Republic, the report cited ”[46]
    13. In Brazilian Portuguese[47]
    14. In French[48]
    15. Indirect reference to the shock worker, as far as I can tell[49]
    So nearly every neutral source that uses Stakhanov for the city glosses it as Kadiivka. Only one exception.
    In contrast, the first fifteen links of the 49 above use Kadiivka and do not mention Stakhanov.
    I call it a clear dominant of usage of Kadiivka in the last month. How’s my math? —Michael Z. 20:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We can also disregard the glosses using the negation operator “-”:
    The neutral English-language sources that refer to the city favour Kadiivka over either Kadiyivka or Stakhanov by 10 to 1.  —Michael Z. 20:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why 30 days? That would smack of recentism at Wikipedia and is unusable. We usually use a 2-3 year trend to determine usage, but you at least need to plop in 365 days for anything remotely accurate. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was countering a statement that “some non-Russian media use Artyomovsk.” Google News doesn’t display more than 100 results for me. This gives a good sense of current usage in news media.
    More data is welcome. But the name was only changed in 2016 and the war started ten months ago, so be aware of what you are demonstrating.  —Michael Z. 22:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per detailed, heavily-researched nomination, per votes by Michael Z., Doremo and blindlynx as well as per * support arguments submitted just over four years ago at Talk:Stakhanov, Ukraine#Requested move 19 December 2018, above. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 11:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.  // Timothy :: talk  14:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to wait for Ukrainian army to retake the city in the summer. Same with Ana Ivanovic, when she is liberated and the Serbian flag flies over her, she can have a Serbian name. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One can envision a scenario where the Russian occupation remains but usage is 100% Kadiivka (which may already be the case). So military events not directly affecting the name aren’t really a criterion to go by.  —Michael Z. 19:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huge WP:CRYSTAL. Not a good criterion in my opinion. Also, who is Ana Ivanovic? Super Ψ Dro 22:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom + Michael Z’s math. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per COMMONNAME, short-term useage hasn't replaced long-term significance IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Long term: it was Kadiivka from its establishment in 1898 to 1937 (39 years), 1940 to 1978 (38), and 2016 to 2023 (7), a total of 84 years, a full two thirds of its 125-year existence. It was Stakhanov for only 38 years, or a bit less than one third.  —Michael Z. 02:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom. What about Komsomolske, Donetsk Oblast, Yunokomunarivsk and Kirovske, Donetsk Oblast?
Marcelus (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kadiivka&oldid=1203168752"