Talk:Kiev Military District

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

Consistency with main article[edit]

Mzajac should we move this to Kyiv Military District to be consistent with the main article, in line with the precedent set at Odesa Military District? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. The subject is a formation of independent Ukraine’s armed forces. WP:KYIV assess it as “Kyiv is likely to be appropriate.”  —Michael Z. 15:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the grounds of WP:KYIV: "For unambiguously historical topics, do not change existing content"; by extension Wikipedia requires consistency within one article, not multiple articles. Summer talk 21:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you mean about one or multiple articles.
The way the convention is generally applied is articles whose subject exists post-independence use Kyiv, even if they have a long history. For example, the articles Kyiv, Ukraine, Ukrainian Armed Forces. “Unambiguously historical” means a subject wholly predating October August 24, 1991. —Michael Z. 22:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As to consistency, articles use the spelling in their title (but don’t get me started on the editorial disaster that is History of Kyiv).  —Michael Z. 22:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Heorhiy Maiboroda, died 1992 in Kyiv. —Michael Z. 22:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe these concerns are valid and I believe the article should be moved without delay. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that this pro-Ukrainian POV-pushing is valid and I think that the current title shall stay. Summer talk 11:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand. The fact that this was a formation of Ukraine after Ukrainian independence is not a “pro-Ukrainian POV” but a fact, and neither is the consensus to spell the main article’s title Kyiv. (If you’re opposed to this fact and consensus, does that make you “anti-Ukrainian”?)
I guess we’ll continue to dispute resolution.  —Michael Z. 22:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, "unambiguously historical" means starting from before October 1995 (Resolution of the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology No. 5). Summer talk 11:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn’t.  —Michael Z. 22:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:KYIV states: "From October 1995 (Resolution of the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology No. 5), Kyiv is presumptively appropriate subject to specifics of the article". Considering that you completely ignore my arguments, I am not replying to any more of your comments on this page. Summer talk 12:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you’re quoting is unambiguously non-historical and overlaps with or corresponds to “unambiguously current/ongoing topics.”  —Michael Z. 17:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From October 1995 Kyiv is appropriate. That ruling does not give guidance on before October 1995. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant "clearly ongoing", not "historical". Summer talk 07:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well your statement with the strike above is still wrong. That unambiguously historical means “starting from before October 1995” is directly contradicted by the rule that immediately follows: “From 24 August 1991 (Ukrainian independence), Kyiv is likely to be appropriate, but proceed with caution.” I agree the ruling is a vague guideline that’s caused only disagreements, but your interpretation is not supported by even a superficial reading of the whole thing.  —Michael Z. 13:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The “starting before” part is even more dramatically contradicted by the rule “For unambiguously current/ongoing topics (e.g. Kyiv Metro), Kyiv is preferred”: the Kyiv Metro started in 1884. As I said, the clear consensus is to consider subjects of any age that continued after independence as not historical and use the spelling Kyiv with them. 1991–1995 “with caution,” whatever that means, which is why we’re discussing it and trying to get consensus, but that can only work if we agree on what the rule says as a starting point.  —Michael Z. 14:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the article: The District was disbanded after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, by 1 November 1992. Kiev would absolutely be correct here per existing consensus on WP:KYIV. The fact that the district structure was used by Ukraine doesn't in any way imply that it continued to exist. Further is the fact that the district existed under the Kiev name for all of its history (with the city not being actually renamed until 1995). There is no case for a change in this scenario. In fact there was no case for the move of Odessa Military District to Odesa Military District, as the reasoning for it was the disambiguation page WP:Consistency (?). WP:CONSISTENT does state We strive to make titles on Wikipedia as consistent as possible with other titles on similar subjects. We follow patterns from article titles for similar topics to the extent that this is practical. However, in the same page at WP:CRITERIA: Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. The topic specific naming convention in this case is the consensus obtained on Ukrainian city name changes from WP:KYIV which, as I mentioned, decisively define Kiev as the proper usage here. I will let you air your concerns and to continue the discussion, but I fully believe that the change needed here is to move the other article back to Odessa Military District rather than to move this article as well against existing consensus. Hecseur (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
November 1992 came after August 1991, don’t you know.
“Existed under the Kiev name” is nonsense. Kiev and Kyiv are two spellings of the same name. Both have been in use for decades and both remain in use in English. The city is Київ in Ukrainian and Киев in Russian, and has never been renamed.
Odesa has not been renamed either, since a Russian empress wiped out the Crimean Tatar identity of Hacıbey in the eighteenth century.
And there’s no “case for” or anything “proper” about it. Neither the “in historical articles” proposal nor the decision even mentioned any rationale.[1] It was a pure WP:vote based on WP:ILIKEIT.  —Michael Z. 17:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both were renamed in the English language, as in the accepted name for these cities has changed. Just as well both had their Wikipedia articles renamed. I'm sorry if I constructed my arguement poorly. If you have any complaints regarding the "in historical articles" you can definitely make an RfC to supersede it. As of right now it is the existing consensus, and edits made should abide it. Hecseur (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither city was renamed. Willm Shakspere didn’t rename himself when he spelt his name differently (see Shakespeare's handwriting#Signatures). We don’t rename colour when we move to another country and start writing color.
For each city’s name, more than one acceptable spelling variant existed and continue to exist, and the prevailing usage is changing. There was never an action of renaming.  —Michael Z. 19:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the more accurate term would be a name change rather than a rename, considering the adoption of standards for romanization of Ukrainian in 1995 did mark an official decleration on a change in the accepted English name of Kyiv by Ukraine. I sure do hope we can focus on discussing these article titles rather than my failures in terminology, however. Hecseur (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but words matter because they represent concepts and things. Kyiv wasn’t renamed and its name wasn’t changed (if you see a real distinction, please explain it). Neither the Ukrainian government nor anyone else renamed the city of Kyiv since the tenth century. See Kyiv#Name for the finer points.
The Ukrainian government only 1) made the Ukrainian language official by declaration in its 1990 declaration of sovereignty and legally in its 1996 constitution, and 2) institutionalized a method of romanization for the Ukrainian language, with its current form published in 2010. Subsequently the United Nations and the rest of the world adopted a spelling based on this.
What fundamentally changed was that the English-speaking world chose to use a romanization from the Ukrainian expression of the name which had never changed, in favour of the Russian one which had never changed and which had been imposed during centuries of forced Russification and Russia’s virtual monopoly on Ukraine’s history, including in the West,[2] to determine the spelling. What superficially changed is adoption of a different spelling, not a new name. We at Wikipedia go by WP:COMMONNAME, so the most-used spelling is what is significant significant, and not anything to do with Ukrainian law (every single conversation about renaming the article about the city for over a decade was bombarded by the mantra “the Ukrainian government doesn’t dictate Wikipedia titles”).  —Michael Z. 03:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In English the city's name was changed (as in, a name change) on anything from maps, to news coverage, to general pronounciation in English. Perhaps this is a language barrier on my end. Regardless, unless you intend to discuss the existing consensus I will withdraw myself from this discussion, as it doesn't focus on the article moves being discussed. Hecseur (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Names are not just words. Onomastics and toponymy are not just etymology, in part because names transcend languages.
Yes, many sources changed their spelling.
Both spellings of the name remain in use since many decades ago. The city’s name has never changed.
Mykhailo Hrushevskyi/Hrushevsky/Hruševskyj (1866–1934) didn’t change his name when some academics stopped spelling the Ukrainian statesman’s name “Mikhail Grushevskii” in the Russian way, years after his death. The artist Oleksandra Ekster isn’t renamed when her name is spelled Aleksandra or Alexandra Exter.
In English we have two main spellings of the name of Kyiv. By the way, many documents and maps appeared with Kyyiv or Kyïv after 1991. They used an alternate transliteration scheme where Ukrainian ї is represented differently. When they switched to Kyiv they certainly didn’t change the name of the city: they merely changed the spelling they used to write the same name. In English, where readers are unaware of Київ vs. Киев, Kyiv, Kyïv, Kyyiv, and Kiev are merely different spellings of the city’s one name.  —Michael Z. 14:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would discuss my personal beliefs on this, but it does not bear weight on the focus of the discussion at hand. I will withdraw myself from this discussion as long as the point of discussion is not focused on the moves of Kiev Military District and Odesa Military District. I'll consider filing an RfC on the subject. Hecseur (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. So does this hinge on the interpretation of “From 24 August 1991 (Ukrainian independence), Kyiv is likely to be appropriate, but proceed with caution,” or is it about whether that applies to an organization that existed from 1862 to 1992?  —Michael Z. 18:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to see evidence in support of your argument, Summer. Can you give us a link? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kiev_Military_District&oldid=1201618454"