Talk:Sievierodonetsk

Requested move 4 February 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus after over a month of discussion. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Sievierodonetsk → Severodonetsk – The common name for this city in the English language is Severodonetsk. English language news media such as Reuters and even Kyiv Post call it Severodonetsk.[1][2] The Press Office of the President of Ukraine calls it Severodonetsk.[3] Google search shows 362 results for Severodonetsk, and 166 results for Sievierodonetsk.

Please note that the talk page is currently Talk:Severodonetsk whilst the article page is currently Sievierodonetsk, so the article page needs moving, and the talk page does not. --Relisted. Andrewa (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Toddy1 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – On Wikipedia, we use the Ukrainian national romanisation of the Ukrainian-language place name for places in Ukraine. We do not use transliterations from Russian, unless a place can be shown to be an exception to the usual rules, as with Kiev or Odessa. There is no evidence that this city is an exception, given that it is not well-known in the Anglophone world. Determining what transliteration to use on the basis of recent press coverage is dangerous, and usually unwise. RGloucester — ☎ 23:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

  Do we? There's nothing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine#Guidelines pointing to any such convention, and there should be if it has any official status at all. Relisting to allow investigation of this claim, see discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note the talk page should be synchronized with the article, so if they move again, they move together. I filed a technical request to fix this. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Talk page is now synchronised.  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support unless evidence can be provided for the guideline stated by User:RGloucester above; Severodonetsk is manifestly much more common than Sievierodonetsk (647 vs 23 hits on Google News). —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  It now appears that there is no such guideline, just a claim of a convention in the broadest sense, see discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no justification for using Russian names for places in Ukraine when that name is not common in English. Zero. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Proposed name is sufficiently widely used (see above) to justify the move. No policy or guideline impedes it, see discussion below. Andrewa (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not convinced the place is on the same level as Kiev, Odessa, etc. to qualify for a "common name" exception. I trust WP:UKR suffices here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 13, 2015; 18:40 (UTC)
  • Comment: The lede of WP:UKR reads in part It is subordinate to the naming conventions , so it doesn't seem to me to be relevant at all. Andrewa (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    • And which naming convention, to which this case is supposed to be subordinate, do you have in mind?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 17, 2015; 13:16 (UTC)
      • I didn't have any specific naming convention in mind, I was just questioning the logic of saying that WP:UKR suffices here when that page seems to explicitly disqualify itself from being cited in this way. Andrewa (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I would go even further than Andrewa, and say that even if WikiProject Ukraine did have the guideline mentioned above (and it seems like they don't), individual WikiProjects have no right to override the Wikipedia policies, in particular WP:COMMONNAME. The move request tells us that the commonly used name for this city in English is Severodonetsk, so unless anyone has substantive evidence against that, there is no option but to move.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Exactly. A topic-specific naming convention only becomes official when it is accepted by consensus, normally at Wikipedia talk:AT. WP:AT links to those that have been accepted in this way. If an official Wikiproject or any less formal group of editors adopt a non-standard convention for a specific topic area, as RGloucester seems to claim in #Discussion below has happened in the case of Ukranian place names, then they eventually need to either gain this consensus or change their practice to comply with the official naming conventions. That latter option seems to be what is happening here. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:CONSISTENCY is an article title criteria. Why don't you talk to the people that create articles on Ukrainian places, and see what they say? Why don't you consult style guides on the transliteration of Ukrainian names? Nothing needs to be "official". RGloucester — ☎ 15:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's core content policies tell us that "Wikipedia does not publish original thought". We should follow what the place is called in English, not inventing novel names for places based on editors' opinions on what places ought to be called, and which language the name should be transliterated from.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you really trying to say that "Sievierodonetsk" is "invented"? That's absurd. RGloucester — ☎ 01:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, these are all good suggestions, and your preference for a particular style is relevant of course. But it doesn't overrule our guidelines. If you want to do that, then make your arguments in the appropriate forums (of which this is but one), and if you get consensus support then your proposal will be adopted. That's how we work here. Andrewa (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No "guidelines" are being overruled. I have no idea what the heck you are talking about, now. The present title meets the article title criteria, and no one has demonstrated that "Severodonetsk" is overwhelmingly preferred by RS. RGloucester — ☎ 01:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your rationale above we use the Ukrainian national romanisation of the Ukrainian-language place name for places in Ukraine if adopted would be a departure from guidelines as they are now. The nomination provides ample evidence that the proposed name is common enough to meet the quideline criteria, and is still unanswered. Andrewa (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any ample evidence. There would be no "departure from the guidelines". Ukrainian places are universally titled that way on Wikipedia, using the Ukrainian national transliteration. Only a few exceptions exist on the basis of common usage, such as Kiev and Odessa. While not "official", these conventions have been in actual practice for ages. I agree that if a place is usually called by another name in English, that should be used (as with Odessa and Kiev). If one could demonstrate that "Severodonetsk" is the "common name" for this place in English, I'd have no problem. That has not been demonstrated with a few measly articles. There is no overwhelming preference for "Severodonetsk", and given this, WP:CONSISTENCY rules the day. RGloucester — ☎ 06:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree that WP:CONSISTENCY (an official policy) should be considered... note that it is but one of the five factors listed there. But there are two ways of achieving this, and this proposed move does not help us to move in either of these two good directions.

The evidence was provided whether you see it or not, and not a shred of other evidence has been provided in reply. The departure from guidelines has been explained above, there is no point repeating it either. The conventions have no weight unless supported by a consensus to adopt them, the practice (if substantiated, can you give specific examples?) simply means that guidelines have been ignored elsewhere too.

This if substantiated should be corrected, both for consistency and other reasons. As I said above, there are two ways of doing this. Either the informal convention should be adopted by a change in guidelines (ie by an official topic-specific convention), and this is the correct course if consensus supports it, or these other article titles should in turn be corrected, and this is the correct course if consensus does not support the local informal convention. Andrewa (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You're trying to legalise something in a realm where there is no legality. No "guidelines" have been ignored. Most places in Ukraine are not commonly known in English. In those cases, we use the default transliteration used by the UN, the Ukrainian government, the EU, and the American government. That's the Ukrainian national transliteration. There is nothing complicated about this. Again, a few hits do not provide evidence that this place has a common name in English, or that it is commonly known as "Severodonetsk". You are the only one ignoring our guidelines and policies. RGloucester — ☎ 16:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Ezhiki and User:RGloucester. Except for exonyms like Kiev, Odessa, and Lemberg, go with the house style. —  AjaxSmack  07:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Tending to support, unless the claim that On Wikipedia, we use the Ukrainian national romanisation of the Ukrainian-language place name for places in Ukraine can be substantiated. Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It is convention, though not a formal guideline. See WP:UKROM and also WP:P-NUK. Russian names are not acceptable for Ukrainian place names, unless they are manifestly more common, such as with Odessa or Kiev. RGloucester — ☎ 17:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Vote above. Andrewa (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sievierodonetsk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150318013353/http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/30513.html to http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/30513.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150318021609/http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/31372.html to http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/31372.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Question

If the Ukrainian name is Sievierodonetsk, why are most news sources referring to it by its Russian name (Severodonetsk)? Great Mercian (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it is just another way of romanizing it, with "є" as "e". Mellk (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

OK but that's still confusing. Great Mercian (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I think part of the reason is that - from what I can gather from this article’s etymology section - the situation regarding the official Ukrainian name is very disputed and confused, with various transliterations from the original Russian existing legally and linguistically. A lot of English-language official Ukrainian sources even use the transliteration from Russian. HappyWith (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2024

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: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

---

• Sievierodonetsk → Siverskodonetsk
• Sievierodonetsk Raion → Siverskodonetsk Raion
• Pervomaisk, Luhansk Oblast → Sokolohirsk
• Molodohvardiisk → Otamanivka
• Novopskov → Aidar, Luhansk Oblast

– On September 19, the Verkhovna Rada renamed a number of settlements as a part of derussification. Yesterday the Chairman of the Rada signed the resolution, thus it comes into force today. Most of the renamed settlements are located on Ukrainian-controlled territory and are too insignificant for the moves to be discussed (some were already moved, e.g. Novomoskovsk → Samar and Chervonohrad → Sheptytskyi). However, in the case of larger settlements that are currently Russian-occupied, I think discussion is necessary, especially for Sievierodonetsk/Siverskodonetsk as it is probably significant enough for WP:COMMONNAME to apply. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 01:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the general sentiment, but I would prefer to wait for some evidence that the new names became COMMONNAME, i.e. that they are used by the majority of the media. We probably are not going to wait for long, since the Ukrainian government is sure to push this usage through, but it still needs to occur first. It might well occur within a month, before this RM gets closed. Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I do not see any indication yet that this has suddenly changed for example this article from yesterday refers to Severodonetsk. Mellk (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

All must be renamed together with the related categories. Category:Sievierodonetsk Raion for example might be renamed to Category:Siverskodonetsk Raion --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:OFFICIAL. There is no rush in moving articles. Mellk (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Due to WP:COMMONNAME. I do not think Molodohvardiisk - is traditional English name used during the long years! Same as everything else. --Yuriy Kvach (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

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.