Template:Did you know nominations/City of district significance (Ukraine)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 ^talk 11:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

City of district significance (Ukraine)

(

)

... that Ukraine relies on expired Soviet-era laws to designate the status of cities of district significance as it does not have a current law of its own?

Created by DDima (talk). Self nominated at 04:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC).

Length, date, hook checks out. I did some punctuation edits to smoothen the text a bit. From what I can see the user has less 5 DYKs, so no QPQ needed. Largely based on Ukrainian-language sources (accepted AGF), so no concern of close paraphrase. --Soman (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Is the law really "expired", or it simply in force because no replacement law was ever passed? If it's the latter, using "expired" is sort of misleading...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 2, 2015; 13:14 (UTC)

It's simply in force because no replacement law was passed (according to the source I cited). Perhaps the hook should be changed to

... that Ukraine still relies on Soviet-era laws and standards to designate the status of cities of district significance as it does not have a current law of its own?

Should be less misleading this way? § DDima 22:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is better. "Expired" suggests that the law no longer has any legal power yet it is still applied in practice, which is not the case here. The new wording does not have that problem. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 3, 2015; 13:16 (UTC)