Talk:Myrnohrad

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

Dmitrov (Dmytrow), 56 km NE of Lvov[edit]

The gazetteer Where Once We Walked (first edition) cites a town Dmitrov (Polish: Dmytrow) at map coordinates 50•12'N/35•09'E, in relative terms described as "56 km NE of Lvov." Is there any information available about a populated locale with this name at that site? -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Deborahjay: Just noticed your comment. The village in question is most likely pl:Dmytrów, which is indeed NE of Lviv. It is at 50°12′N, but more than 10° further to the west. It has nothing to do with this Dymytrov (renamed to Myrnohrad) — NickK (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed Myrnohrad[edit]

I moved this article back to Dymytrov after it was moved undiscussed to Myrnohrad. Should it be moved back? Is this a de-Sovietization name change or a Ukrainian vs. Russian name dispute? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Good Olfactory:, I must say that I am very surprised by your actions. It took me over an hour to update and add explanations to all relevant articles, but it took you just four minutes to revert everything without reading.
I have added a clear explanation to the article: this is a decommunisation change, and this has nothing to do with Ukrainian vs. Russian name disputes. In fact the old name is Димитров in both Ukrainian and Russian (exactly identical spelling) and means a name of Bulgarian communist, the new name is Мирноград in both Ukrainian and Russian (again exactly identical spelling) and means "peaceful town" or "town of piece". I thought the text I added to the article made clear that it is not a Russian vs. Ukrainian issue, but I can add more details to the articles if needed.
Your argument that it was "undiscussed, unproposed" surprises me as well. The name was proposed and unanimously supported by the local council (I could not find any source in English but here is one in Ukrainian), thus it was not me who invented it and it does not seem to be controversial. Regarding discussion, how am I supposed to discuss if the only message on this talk page was unanswered for seven years? I do not want to wait for seven more years to get an answer from someone.
To sum up, I do not see any reason why it should not be moved to Myrnohrad, thus please move it back or provide a good reason why it should not be done. Thanks — NickK (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Undiscussed, unproposed" refers to Wikipedia processes, not outside processes. You can be surprised, but it's quite normal for major changes like this to be formally proposed through WP:RM. Several of the recent changes of place names in Ukraine have been controversial on Wikipedia, so my caution is not unwarranted. If it's uncontroversial, the RM will be closed relatively soon and the article will be renamed. It's not going to take "seven years" to resolve the discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Olfactory: Thanks for your answer.
First of all, this is not the isolated case: several hundreds places were, are and will be renamed in Ukraine this year, and previous moves like Toretsk were made without WP:RM, moreover, there is a source stating such renames were not controversial.
Here I see two ways of moving forward. If there is no reason why this cannot be speedily renamed, I will move this article back to Myrnohrad and go on with other cities (my plan includes updating and adding explanations to all concerned articles). If you can provide a reason why speedy renames are not appropriate in such cases, I will stop renaming and I will open WP:RM requests for all cases instead. Please tell me what is the best way to proceed. Thanks — NickK (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a RM in this particular case, just to gauge where we're at with consensus that these should be done immediately. This doesn't necessarily mean that every other similar case will require an RM. If it proves to be uncontroversial from the standpoint of the editors who participate in the RM, that might be a sign that renaming the others without a formal RM could also be uncontroversial. If the article is renamed, I'm happy to facilitate renaming of the categories again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 May 2016[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as clear consensus has been established. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 01:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


– All these places in Ukraine were officially renamed effective on 22 May 2016, thus the respective articles should be renamed per WP:MODERNPLACENAME. These places have no established English names (and never had them), they are small towns or raions with a population below 100,000. Articles are currently called after former local names that are not in use since 22 May, thus I propose to rename them to their new official local names according to WP:P-NUK and WP:UKR.

I do not see any reason why we can choose to keep old place names, but an administrator told me that an RM is needed here to gauge where we're at with consensus that these should be done immediately. It was also stated that these renames were controversial, which is not true at least for this case: this specific group of renames is based on proposals from local councils and does not concern any conflict zones in Eastern Donbass or Crimea. Similar renames earlier this year, like Toretsk, were uncontroversial both on-wiki (uncontested moves) and off-wiki (source)

Sources for new names: official list in the government gazette Holos Ukrayiny (Ukrainian, complete and accurate), Interfax (English, less accurate) — NickK (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also pinging people involved in discussions regarding this and other articles on the list and who might be interested in this one: @Good Olfactory:, @Ymblanter:, @Ales sandro:, @Staszek Lem:, @Trydence: — NickK (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support these moves, however, after the articles have been moved, old names should be retained, and a sentence about the move which includes a reliable source should be added to each of the articles. Unfortunately some of the previous moves were accompanied by substandard edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Ymblanter. RGloucester — ☎ 16:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - If this is about decommunization, then the law in question lists much more places to rename. In particular, I am pretty sure the whole Kuibysheve enchilada named after Bolshebik [Kuybyshev]] is to be renamed. Now, the question, how shall we handle redlinks, like in Kuibysheve? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: This is indeed about decommunisation, but this RM concerns only one batch. The law in question indeed contains more places, but I did not list red links here. I think these links should be updated as well: for instance, in Kuibysheve only two places in Crimea will stay with their current names at the moment (renames in Crimea take effect only when Russian occupation ends), thus the remaining ones should be updated. Same for others like Zhovtneve or Komsomolske — NickK (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myrnohrad&oldid=1204160764"