Talk:Postal codes in Ukraine

Odessa vs Odesa, Kiev vs Kyiv

(From the talk page)

Shao, it is common to see hot discussions over the titles of the articles. If it is the case then it is usually a good idea to use the title name in all the references to the articles (unless there are strong reasons to use an alternative name). That way we have only one discussion over the name not one hundred discussions and the readers do not get confused. Both Odessa/Odesa and Kiev/Kyiv are large cities, known to the English readers. We have to use WP:EN the common names in English (we do not want to change all Moscows into Moskvas or Petersburgs into Peterburgs, do we?) It looks like Odessa and Kiev are way more common than the alternative names, that is why after the long discussions the names were adopted as the article title. Please do not restart the discussion in the million places. And yes, we have WP:DE and WP:3RR policies: users who frequently revert without discussion against a consensus of many other users are usually eventually get blocked. Please concentrate on the creating context rather than edit war over names Alex Bakharev 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See hyperlinks in article Reniyskyi Raion to Budzhak and Bugeac. They both are redirects to Budjak. Why it's allowed to use redirects for this geographic area, but prohibited for Kyiv, Odesa, Kharkiv etc.?

But in general: I had already comprehended (after the stories with Moldovan and Siberian Wikipedias)that it's impossible to beat a russian patriotic lobby in English Wiki, so it's no sense to convince me of this again. I'll just try to do what is possible for my humble capacities. --Shao 00:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no relation to the article of Reniyskyi Raion and Budjak. If you feel the redirects are abused you are welcome to fix the problem. Regarding Kiev and Odessa there was an extensive discussion. If you have new arguments just file a WP:RM for the articles. Do not be ridiculous it is very easy to to beat the "Russian patriotic lobby" (two active and handful semi-active editors out of thousand wikipedians). WP:SOAPboxing of any persuasion is indeed not tolerated. Alex Bakharev 01:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prevailing usage

Kyiv is the prevailing name when it came down to describe the government of Ukraine, and its subordinates. In particular, the Ukrainian postal service is the government monopoly (in some services) and 100% governed owned enterprise, and as such it follows (and suppose to follow) the transliteration rules established by the Ukrainian government (and internationally recognized), which prescribe to use Kyiv.

Now, I’d like to ask people (Irpen, Alex Bakharev and Kuban kazak), who solely devote themselves in violation of "don't "fix" links that aren't broken" to change Kyiv to Kiev to provide overwhelming evidence that in this particular context of Ukrainian postal codes it should be Kiev, but certainly not Kyiv. --KPbIC

You shift the burden of proof, Krys. The one who insists on substituting the conventional name has to provide an overwhelming evidence that in this particular context the name to be used should differ from the most commonly used one. During the debate about the name of Chernihiv in historical context, it was the supporters of using Chernigov had to prove that in medieval context the proper spelling should be different the main one. Those who where arguing for the historic rather than the modern term had to do a comprehensive literature analysis from EB to The Dynasty of Chernigov, 1146-1246 book published as recently as in 2003. Those who want to introduce the name different from the article's one, be it Chernigov, Kyiv, Lvov or Lwow, Cholm or Kharkov face an uphill battle which does not mean that it is an impossible one as such uses exist in Wikipedia. But the need to deflect from the commonality needs to be proven, not the other way around. There is no particular historic context for Kyiv that I know of and I am saying so in good faith. --Irpen 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets answer the question in your fashion. What are the reasons to use Kyiv over Kiev? Fact is, so far all of the arguments I heard go not only against WP:NC(UE) but also against WP:POINT and WP:CON. Enough...the sooner we create a bot that will eradicate the incorrect mutilated spelling Kyiv into the English Kiev (even my firefox autospellcheck redflags Kyiv) the better wikipedia will be. --Kuban Cossack 17:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fragment of discussion to think about

Follow up to Ëzhiki. Since you are right about writing encyclopedia for human readers that come from different backgrounds and with different preferences, don't you agree that having Kyyiv (Kiev) variant in many cases would be beneficial rather than thorough elimination of any instance of Kyyiv except from main article. Some users here even play role of robots by replacing all those "damn" Kyyivs.--Bryndza 22:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be beneficial in many cases (post-1991 topics being the most obvious), but not in the majority of cases. And it's the majority of cases that defines the title of the main article.

As for the "robot users", I haven't had a misfortune of meeting people who would make a point to replace Kyyiv/Kyiv with Kiev, so I can't speculate why anyone would want to engage in such an activity wholesale with no regard to context.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to point with fingers here, but someone has such hobby. This is often his only edits in the article. Not Irpen. And what do you think about having Kyyiv instead of Kiev and Odesa instead of Odessa in Ukrainian postal codes. Isn't it more appropriate for this particular instance?--Bryndza 22:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I were working on something similar, I'd be using the [[Kiev|Kyyiv]] convention. Simply writing [[Kyyiv]] (i.e., Kiev via redirect) would also be acceptable here, but I just don't like to use redirects unless absolutely necessary. I do agree that using just [[Kiev]] is less than ideal in an article about modern Ukrainian postal codes. I certainly would not make an edit just to link to the actual article title.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope others find [[Kiev|Kyyiv]] to be reasonable too in this case.--Bryndza 23:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, [[Kiev|Kyyiv]] condition - is exactly the way which I tried to use in this article. And exactly the reason for the war against my edits. Shao

The problem with "[[Kiev|Kyyiv]]" is lack of clarity and oddity to the average reader. "[[Kiev|Kyyiv]] (Kiev)" may be a solution for this particular article. --Irpen 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not put this way in this particular article. First, it somehow disorganizes formatting of tabulated data. Second, if average reader will get confused of curios - all he has to do - to click on the link which will lead to the Kiev article which will explain everything. In other instances (other articles) "[[Kiev|Kyyiv]] (Kiev)" would, probably be more appropriate. Let's also discuss "Odesa-Odessa". I hope we agree that it should be in analogy with Kyiv/Kiev?--Bryndza 00:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an analogy for this article, yes, but not Vylkove. As for relying on the reader's clicking to find out the unknown to him name of the known to him town, I think it is wrong. Things that are easy to tell have to be told where they belong. We should not be crowding the reader with unfamiliar unexplained names for no reason. BTW, "[[Kiev]] (Kyiv)" are used in some articles, including by myself, when I see so appropriate. For instance, in the Orange Revolution which is largely written by me and Michael in its current form. --Irpen 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look from this point of view then: this article is merely a list of city names and postal codes. Simple, official information. Very useful in my opinion for those who is looking for such reference. No history, no comments. Double naming of official names will create confusion of the reader. In case if he does find something unfamiliar - he clicks on the name. It is much more confusing to have two names there. Good there is "[[Kiev]] (Kyiv)". I would prefer "[[Kyiv]] (Kiev)" though. Yet there is conversation still going on my User_talk:Bryndza page.--Bryndza 03:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{| class="wikitable" |- Italic text |}

OK, I am looking for the best compromise here. Just [[Kyyiv]] is simply a bad idea as this merely calls the city whose name is familiar to the reader by an unfamiliar name thus creating confusion. The reader having to click on the link to clear this up is not a proper solution. If you reject even giving the most common name in parentheses, I suggest the footnote. I hope this will finally end the edit war. --Irpen 06:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm late to the party, folks. I was also going to suggest a footnote, which is always the best way to deal with this kind of problems. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to me - a good compromise. Still requires a click though :). Shall I request the erticle to be unblocked now?--Bryndza 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected the article. Happy editing.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected from editing

I have requested to protect pages from editing till we finish with discussion. Unfortunately it was too late to save Shao from ban.--Bryndza 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now unprotected (see above).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link broken

http://www.ukrposhta.com/ appears broken, but since many ukrainian sites seem to go in and out of service, I want someone else to confirm that it is broken and remove it. Inclusionist (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]