This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It looks like our articles use a wide variety of currency notations. -- hr, hr, hrvy, UAH, uah, ₴.... To make it easier for readers, we should pick one notation and try to stick with it. Which makes most sense? UAH and ₴ seem to be the best candidates. And should they go before or after the amount? Ground Zero (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I propose to use 100 hr since no-one else has voiced an opinion. Ground Zero (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, but I was not able to answer back then. Now, I have been here and took the liberty to collect some currency notations - see the picture.

This is the overly notation used in like 99% of the cases. I would therefore propose to switch to 100 грн instead for the following reasons:

1. 'hr' is highly confusing and ambiguous with regards to the notation for hours, which is 'hr' as well. I had difficulties when reading the Ukraine articles for the first time due to this ambiguity. And I reckon it does not support future editing, because it is far from fool proof.
2. I have never seen a two letter version anywhere in Ukraine, they always use 3 letters.
3. The proper transliteration of грн would actually be grn, according to the Ukraine language section, so using hr is highly confusing in addition.
4. Just because in Ukrainian a г is pronounced like h does not mean grn would not also be pronounce like hrn ... it is an Ukrainian pronunciation, not a Western one.
5. грн is what travellers encounter most of the time (70%?, otherwise ₴).
6. грн should not cause any issues regarding encoding, since Cyrillic has been around the Internet for quite some time. Certainly longer than strange symbols like ₺ ₩ ¥ zł ₪ ֏ ₹ ៛ ₴ which we also use in this wiki.
7. Furthermore, I doubt anyone travelling to Ukraine would have problems understanding грн, because English here is rare and you cannot really travel around here without a basic knowledge of Cyrillic. This is a start and would certainly help people getting more used to the situation in Ukraine.

Objections? Opinions? Cheers, Ceever (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of грн. However, this preference can be a result of our acquaintance with Cyrillic alphabet. Let's wait for a reply from somebody not familiar with Cyrillic. --Kiaora (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the objection to "hr". It's not a good solution after all. I am wondering though if we have any precedent for грн, and if it will cause problems on some readers. Let's not rush into this - let's see if anyone else has comments. Thanks for this, Ceever. Ground Zero (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at WV:$. The only analogue that I can find is Setbia, where we use RSD and not PCД. That doesn't mean we can't change it, but letters in other alphabets are harder for readers to remember. On the other hand, as Ceever points out, they'll be seeing it a lot when they get to Ukraine. An alternative would be to spell out hryvnia each time, as we do for dirham in the countries that use dirhams. Ground Zero (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the currency list underneath the editor window already includes лв and РСД. I reckon it would not mind also having грн.

Also, regarding the spelling, I have been here for 5 days now and never actually realised that they pronounce the currency. They might have, but I am not a Russian or Ukrainian language expert and even if they said it, I did not recognise it. With dirham it was the complete opposite, picked it up pretty fast when I was in Morroco. I reckon this would happen to many travellers not firm with the local language, which is why they probably read this English version of the guide. So, spelling out hryvnia would probably not really help.

Cheers, Ceever (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards your proposal to use грн, but let's give others some more time to see if there are legitimate objections, like readability on some devices. Ground Zero (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceever: I call "time". I think you should go ahead with your proposal. Any thoughts on what should be done about Russia? Ground Zero (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know, how we can add it in the currency list underneath the editor window? Also, what about Russia? Same problem there? Unfortunately, I have not been to Russia and no idea what is the situation there. Cheers, Ceever (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I don't know about the editor window. Probably best to ask in the pub. Aldo, thanks for the recommendation last January to visit Egypt. We fly on Friday. Regards, Ground Zero (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ground Zero: Enjoy. Btw. if you want, take some green cardamom back home with you from Egypt. This stuff is very cheap there and healthy (healthier than ginger). Cheers Ceever (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swept in from the pub

How can we add a new currency symbol (грн) for Ukraine (see discussion) in the list that appears underneath the editor window? Cheers, Ceever (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done (it can be edited at MediaWiki:Edittools btw) –sumone10154^(talk) 23:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Ceever (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should remove Donetsk from the list of cities. The Ukrainian government has no control over Donetsk whatsoever, and it is now part of the de facto independent Donetsk People's Republic, so it is now de facto part of another country. The dog2 (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The green infobox notes that "we cover the de facto independent Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic in separate articles." so I agree, Donetsk should not be in the Ukraine list of cities. Ground Zero (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, too, per Wikivoyage policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty obvious that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was in response to the toppling of Yanukovich. After all, Yanukovich was granted political asylum in Russia after he was toppled. But Ground Zero vehemently disagrees with this, so what does everyone say? Of course, there is the other geopolitical aspect of the US and EU attempting to recruit Ukraine into NATO, but that may be too much detail to cover in the article. The dog2 (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see references to credible political analysts, rather than The dog2's political analysis. I don't think this is the place for personal views. Ground Zero (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Wikipedia article on the Russo-Ukrainian War with all the sources referenced there. The dog2 (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that the invasion was a "response" to the ouster of Yanukovich? Given your unfortunate track record of factual errors, it is not unreasonable to ask you to provide evidence of your statements. Just linking to a Wikipedia article is a poor response. Putin's request to the Russian Federal Council to use armed forces in Ukraine stated "In connection with the extraordinary situation in Ukraine, the threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation, our compatriots, the personnel of the military contingent of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation deployed on the territory of Ukraine (Autonomous Republic of Crimea) ... I hereby submit to the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation a letter on the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine pending normalization of the public and political situation in that country." It does not mention Yanukovich. You infer that it was a response. I only ask that we stick to the facts, rather than arguing over opinions, because I'd rather spend my time on writing travel stuff. And if that is "vehemently disagreeing", then so be it. Ground Zero (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were not Putin... Declared reasons for a war seldom have much to do with the reasons for the war. But yes, if it is evident that the attack was a response to something specific, it shouldn't be hard to find that analysis in a number of newspapers, preferably those used as sources in the Wikipedia article (as there then has been another layer of checking). If it is not evident, then I don't think we need to say anything about it. I think, though, that the conflict between pro-Russian and pro-West sentiments is important to tell about, and it seems we have done that, although we could perhaps improve on how to tell about it. –LPfi (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, whatever the reasons, a head-to-head confrontation between the US and Russia doesn't sound very reassuring.Lazarus1255 (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should update the map to reflect that the areas around Donetsk and Lugansk are now beyond the Ukrainian government's control, and that Crimea has been annexed by Russia. Does anyone know how to do this? The dog2 (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it's tempting to update this hour by hour as events unfold in Ukraine, but let's remember that Wikivoyage is a travel guide, not Wikinews. People who are thinking of travelling to Ukraine, or who are there now are not going to be looking at Wikivoyage as their prime source of information. And they shouldn't. Let's keep the warning simple, and understand that that people in the situation will be looking at better sources of information about the Russian invasion than Wikivoyage can be, such as CNN, BBC, Al-Jazeera, or any newspaper site. Ground Zero (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the mentioned sources are very good alternatives, but I agree that Wikivoyage cannot be the reliable source for any more detailed advice – and thus I agree that keeping the warning box and other advice simple is a good strategy. Still, when it is clear that the warning box gives a false picture, such as when it talks about instability instead of war, when it says to avoid the border to the "republics" when the war is all over Ukraine, or when it says to leave immediately when flights are suspended and roads are jammed, then I think it needs updating.

Let's try to keep the updates such that we don't need to update again next hour, but if people want to check whether the warning box is still valid (and update as needed), I think that is just good.

–LPfi (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should not add warningboxes only for them to go out-of-date soon. All I think we should do is to say xxx is the subject of a dangerous war zone, see the Ukraine page for up-to-date information. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't think we should add such boxes to every city. I think we can expect our readers to read our country article before travelling somewhere. Warning boxes in articles that are not actively maintained will get outdated, sooner or later. –LPfi (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not always the case – not everyone maneuvers through the breadcrumb hierarchy, some just use the search box on the main page. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To read about a destination, yes. But before you go, you would want to read up on visa policy, currency and general advice. You don't have to use the breadcrumb to find the country article. –LPfi (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard from news sources that Russia may be shifting from hitting military targets to targeting critical infrastructure. Well, it's a good thing these Wikivoyage pages exist so that there can be an archive at least of everything that was noteworthy and beautiful in the country, in case everything goes to hell. Lazarus1255 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

President Zelensky has promised to rebuild everything. Only time will tell. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I hope so.Lazarus1255 (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We now say, in Ukraine#Talk (in a paragraph that should perhaps go to Respect):

The removal of Russian as an official language has been enthusiastically supported by most Ukrainian nationalists, but has deeply angered the large ethnic Russian minority; in 2022 this is particularly evident in Eastern and Southern Ukraine.

In what way is it evident? By 99 % of votes in four oblasts being in favour of being annexed by Russia? I assume it was an issue when the law was enacted (Wikipedia is quite confused on that law, seems both 2014 and 2019 are relevant, and I don't remember), but in 2022? –LPfi (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reports I've read are that most Russian-speaking Ukrainians are enthusiastic supporters and participants in the fight to defend the country, and many of them are now speaking Ukrainian routinely as a way to show Ukrainian nationalism. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the same too. I don't think that is relevant for a travel guide, though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in this boat, but I know people who are: if you're an American who travels to Eastern Europe regularly and speaks fluent Russian, should you avoid speaking Russian when in Ukraine now given the war? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give the same advice as in most countries formerly behind the Iron Curtain: use Russian if that's your best common language, but start with some phrases in the language of the country. Elsewhere you wouldn't do that for ethnic Russians, here it may or may not apply also to them. I haven't been to Ukraine, but here in Finland few people speak Ukrainian, and Ukrainians often not good English, so Russian is the main language for communication with Ukrainian refugees (for those of us who have studied it). –LPfi (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the new phrasing but as a side point, Ikan Kekek, does the term "Russian-speaking Ukrainians" refer to ethnic Ukrainians who know how to speak Russian, or to Ukrainian citizens of Russian ethnicity? Some reports I heard is that the Donbass decided to declare independence in 2014 because it is a Russian-speaking region, and they were very angered by the post-Euromaidan government's decision to make Ukrainian the sole official language. I have no doubt Putin had a hand in fuelling the separatist sentiments as well, but he also couldn't have pulled that off without the support of a significant part of the local population in the Donbass. Of course, liberal Russians exist too, and it is only natural that this group of people will be very pro-West and anti-Putin. The dog2 (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the articles I've read, it refers to Ukrainian citizens whose first language was Russian and have not been living under Russian occupation since 2014, which very much includes people thought of as ethnic Russians. Things are very different now than they were in 2014. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceever: I am uneasy about the wording in Hospitality, added in 2018. Might this be about isolated incidents? Is it really generally true? I assume hospitality isn't as deeply rooted in the culture as in some Central Asian countries, but wouldn't it be enough to tell that? –LPfi (talk) 08:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NATO Ministry of Truth 😂

I was definitely aware of an underlying "hostility" towards non-locals. But my wording might be too extreme, for I am not native English.

However, it is not just Central Asia which feels more appreciating towards tourists — Turkey, Georgia, Moldavia, Jordan ... much more friendly.

No idea — it would be good to have the opinion of someone else, who was there, to understand how the whole unfriendliness of Ukrainians towards tourists can be better worded.

Ceever (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swept in from the pub

Should we have some standardized warning template for Ukranine locations? I noticed a warningbox used in Kherson, but there are no warnings at all at some other cities near the frontline, or other ones that have been subject to shelling, with civilian deaths. Granted, on one level "everyone should know this is dangerous", but still, it looks a bit strange as we have some big warnings for some other places (recently the pub discusses a giantic warning about forced labour abductions in parts of each Asia) but we say nothing about the danger of travelling to Ukraine? Ideally such warning ("this is an active warzone, civilian deaths have been reported accross the entire country") should be appended to all locations in Ukraine using a bot. Piotrus (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed this on Talk:Ukraine. The bottom line is, the same can be said for all cities in a war zone; it will also require a lot of maintenance. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We had the discussion on USA (civil unrest), and last I checked, we had many warning boxes on Iraq that were not updated since the IS territories were retaken under government control. I hope we don't have warning boxes for all locations in Syria.

I think we can expect travellers to read warning boxes at the head of country articles. Major changes for big cities where the situations has been stable would warrant one, I think. I now updated the one for Kherson, with the little info I have.

–LPfi (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with LPfi. The number of out-of-date warnings boxes on our articles shows that we don't have enough regular contributors to keep them up to date or remove them when the danger has passed. We should not exacerbate this problem by adding region- and city-level warning boxes. A country-level warning for Ukraine is sufficient. Ground Zero (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Будинок держпромисловості 1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not shown on the page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swept in from the pub

There are many entries using obsolete spellings of Ukrainian city names (like kiev, odessa, lugansk, zaporozhye, rovno, ternopol, uzhgorod, Kharkov, Nikolaev, Lvov, kirovograd)

I want to clean it up. Don't want to be warned as a BOT.

Thanks and good day. ITZQing (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are detailed explanations of these words on Ukraine#Respect, as well as related discussions on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:KYIV.

It is offensive and disrespectful to use the translated names of Ukrainian cities in USSR era. Both the Ukrainian government and the people are working hard to improve this problem. I think it is reasonable to edit it.

Refs：

https://mfa.gov.ua/storage/app/sites/1/2018-10-01-pg27.pdf

https://mfa.gov.ua/storage/app/sites/1/2018-10-01-e-conf101-144.pdf

https://mfa.gov.ua/storage/app/sites/1/e-conf101-84-roman-system-ukraine-eng.pdf ITZQing (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We're NOT Wikipedia. We have policies about WV:Tone and WV:Be fair#Political disputes. I, speaking for myself, don't want to toe the line of official NATO stances parroting that Russia is purely evil and Zelenski is an angel in need of help. Ibaman (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone here is suggesting we do that.

The most relevant policy, IMO, is WV:Naming conventions, specifically articles should use the city, region or country name most commonly used in English-speaking countries. I get a general sense from the English-language media that the Ukrainian names for places are now most common, and this has certainly been the case since the start of the full-scale invasion last year, but I don't know enough to say this is true of every city or oblast. Do any of our article titles/page names for Ukrainian destinations still use the Russian-to-English transliteration? If so, before moving them, you'd need to demonstrate on the article's talk page that the Ukrainian-to-English transliteration is indeed the most common English name. Where our article already uses the Ukrainian transliteration in its title, I see no problem with that name being preferred elsewhere in mainspace.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, for the record, I refer to the labeling of Russian language names as "obsolete spellings", which to me has overtones of "Let's cancel Russian Language and culture because it's the most righteous and virtuous posture available nowadays". Just to be clear here. Ibaman (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mmhmm, so let's leave the politics to one side, and treat these placenames as we treat any other: follow common English usage, as per policy. I don't think the Russian language is going anywhere.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing over the correct stance on the Russia-Ukraine War will not have any effect on the war, or contribute to building a travel guide. No-one is suggesting that we stop using Russian spellings for Russian cities, so there is no cancelling going on. Anyone who travels to Ukraine these days will see the modern transliterations, not the old ones, and English-language media have largely adopted the spellings favoured by the Ukrainian government. I don't think that the reference to NATO above is constructive. Let's leave politics out of Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ground Zero. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with NATO, and my edits are not against WV:Tone and WV:Be fair#Political disputes, but you keep pushing back my edits, which may include corrections to links, correct domain names, proper nouns. And you are retracting my edit with the only reason of "don't cancel the Russian language", which is unreasonable, I need an explanation. ITZQing (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, here is a travel guide, if the marked place names are inconsistent with the local marked language, it will cause great trouble to users. ITZQing (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• yes, agreed, totally, in this year there's been too much editing on Ukraine as a whole, getting very nitpickingly detailed about not calling Mykola "Nikolai", writing Kyiv not Kiev, and such and such, excessively for a travel guide. Such emphasis is, too, a very clear political statement, which this community should avoid IMHO. Ibaman (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Lugansk may be a special case, as it is mainly Russian-speaking and has been controlled by Russia or Russian-backed separatists since 2014. I think "Luhansk" is more common in English-language media, but apparently travellers are more likely to see "Lugansk" locally, so there is some need for case-by-case judgement. For instance, if a POI such as a museum has an official English-language name that travellers will encounter, we should use that name and not change it to match the spelling that's more common in English-language media about the city in general. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there is a lot of value in making our spelling match what the traveller will see on English-language signs at the destination, whenever we can figure out that there is a consistent pattern. What's in the US or UK news isn't really as helpful as what's on the highway sign. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, I also think proper nouns and nouns of historical significance need to be treated with caution. ITZQing (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• With the exception of Chernobyl/Chornobyl, almost all the Ukrainian spellings are the spellings used locally and in English-speaking media (though I'm not sure about Luhansk for a similar reason to Mx Granger), which is what Wikivoyage:Naming conventions calls for. This has almost nothing to do with NATO, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or the erasure of Russian culture. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It indeed has very much to do with the invasion and the attitudes towards it (although for us perhaps indirectly). Weren't Kiev and Odessa used more or less exclusively until 2022? I don't have a good picture of neither what is used locally or in English-speaking media, but I assume there may be a significant difference between areas with a majority of Russian speakers and areas with Ukrainian speakers (at least, likewise, until 2022), and areas controlled by Russia and areas controlled by Ukraine. I am somewhat surprised if local usage and usage in English conform in all the country (as defined by internationally recognised borders). –LPfi (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Anecdotally, I've more or less always used the Ukrainian spellings (except for Chornobyl), well before the invasion, but that could also be because one of my close friends is Ukrainian whose parents migrated to Australia soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• yeah, for the record, I object strongly to the erasure of the Russian traditional names, to calling them "obsolete", to edits described as "Russia is a terrorist state", which this user has not done, but happen very frequently on almost a daily basis. In the name of Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Anton Chekhov, Modest Mussorgsky, Nikolai Rimski-Korsakov, and leaving politics totally outside. I hope I don't sound belligerant or insane to you. The matter is, I care deeply about our travel guide. Ibaman (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ibaman: We're talking about Ukrainian articles. Ukraine is internationally recognized as being independent of Russia. Arguing to maintain the use of Russian names in Ukraine articles when common use in Ukraine and in English has changed to Ukrainian spellings comes across as pushing a political agenda. I think you should back off, especially after making comments about "official NATO stances parroting that Russia is purely evil and Zelenski is an angel in need of help" and "Let's cancel Russian Language and culture because it's the most righteous and virtuous posture available nowadays". Political comments like these are not constructive in a travel guide. You are an important contributor to Wikivoyage, but I think you're off track here. Ground Zero (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon your reasonings, GZ, I respect your points, and I hope the conflict on the ground ends soon, so we all can really focus on building a travel guide. Having said that, just look at Max's point about Lugansk. DPR and LPR are part of Ukraine or Russia, which spelling to use on their articles? This discussion would be long and hot, if it were to take place, if this was the appropriate forum. "Leaving politics aside" is harder and trickier than it looks. Everything is political. Again, I hope I don't sound belligerant or insane or destructive regarding our collective effort. Again again, I hope the conflict is over sooner than later. Ibaman (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russian spellings in the zones that have been occupied by Russia since 2014 make sense to me. But it is too early to change anything in the areas occupied by Russia in 2022-23. No-one is travelling to these places anyway, and we really don't know what is left now, so it is a wasted effort to be making such changes. Ground Zero (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel dumbfounded by asking this question, but when you mean "Max's point about Lugansk", are you talking about Mx. Granger's (sorry, I don't know the real names of many users here :-()? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 13:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ibaman calls me "Max" sometimes. It don't mind it – I assume it's a modification of "Mx", not a guess at my real name. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. That makes sense. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 13:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I want to make sure of a few things, who decides the name of a place and whose decision should we respect?

These translations were completed in 1994, but people were still used to the old translations at that time, but now it is different, and modern translations are used in road signs, manuals, and even Google maps (if you pay attention to it). What's the point of using outdated translations?

Here I respect proper nouns (for example: Chicken Kiev), others use modern names, which are necessary for travel guides.

I didn't "remove the Russian language", the Russian language of these place names will remain as it is. But this is English, and we should make reasonable corrections to it. And you, even withdrawing the link name to wikipedia, I am puzzled. As you said, we don't want to involve political issues, so please don't subjectively think that these are the actions of "NATO", "USA" and "Zelensky", okay? (actually none of us mentioned them) ITZQing (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• yeah, for the record, I always had the dream of doing tourism in ODESSA and practice my RUSSIAN language skills, and it's sad to come to the conclusion that's NEVER gonna happen, the river has flown, the wheel has turned, the dream is dead. Sorry for this outburst, and for this whole pickle. I've reverted myself where it's crucial. Ibaman (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A comment about the spelling of Luhansk/Lugansk: I wouldn't object to using the Russian transliteration that is currently most used there, but I wouldn't put any effort into making the change, myself, because we may have to change it again in a few months or even sooner, depending on the results of the ongoing war. Let's keep in mind that, for example, Kharkiv was known as a Russian-speaking city before last year - precisely the reason the Russians expected the locals to welcome the Russian Army - but not only have most of the citizens of that city resisted the invasion resolutely, but there are reports there and in other parts of Ukraine of native Russian speakers choosing to change their daily spoken language to Ukrainian as a reaction to Russian efforts to extinguish Ukrainian nationality and culture. And as this is a very active war zone, who is traveling there, anyway? It might make most sense to wait until the dust has settled a bit before concentrating on editing travel articles about Ukraine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree. Article names for Kyiv, Odesa, Dnipro and some others have been changed to a transcription from Ukrainian, and that's good and well. Let's link those places by that name (other than in historic context, where the matter is more complex), I don't think that the traditional (Russian-based) spelling should be deleted (where the two are given in parallel), as a traveller might know or encounter that name. Further article name changes should be discussed on the respective article talk pages, and for Luhansk, Donetsk & al, yes, let's wait until the dust has settled. I agree that it isn't worthwhile to put much effort in these articles right now – although journalists and volunteers do travel to Ukraine, they hopefully do not depend on us. –LPfi (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support making the originally proposed changes, which probably should've been made some time ago, though they hadn't been adopted by the media at large until the war for some reason. My understanding is that Russian names are a remnant of the USSR period, when these names were used due to the political structure of the USSR. However we should now be using the Ukrainian names unless the locality continues to use the Russian name. Major cities away from the warzone should be uncontroversial moves, particularly in the western and central regions of the country. As for areas with large Russian-speaking populations in the east and occupied zones, I can see why there would be more cause to retain those Russian names, and I believe those should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add one, in my view, important point. This isn't political. People are confusing the current war with these name changes because both sides but particularly Russians see it that way. This is about what the local people, and the world as a whole, call the place. It's not about the conflict. The argument to use Ukrainian names has been a valid one ever since Ukraine became independent of the USSR. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of local people, in many cases, have Russian as their mother tongue. Ukraine abandoning bilingualism and Russian-speakers starting to use Ukrainian were indeed political moves, and English media following suite has likewise been very much political. Many of these names were established in English long before the USSR, in the same way as Venice or Brussels; the name used in English doesn't always conform to the official or locally used name. Still, English media starting to use the Ukrainian name of many places is a fact, and we don't need to get political to recognise that fact. We can of course still honour local or historic usage, especially if we believe the change might get reverted. –LPfi (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative and historical names should always be reflected in articles, because travellers will encounter them -- if nowhere else -- in books. When the commonly used name in English changes, we should update the article title, and include the former or alternative name in the first sentence of the article. This includes Russian versions of names that are replaced by Ukrainian ones. Ground Zero (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. I would note that, according to w:Languages of Ukraine, only Crimea and fringes of the country speak a language other than Ukrainian. City names may have lasted in Russian longer than the presence of the language, but the widespread (80%+) use of Ukrainian in Ukraine should be reflected in city article titles were appropriate. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "fringes" are hardly insignificant. I also note that Russian is more common in big cities than in their region overall. As populations are unevenly distributed, I assume the 30% native Russian speakers of 2001 must be majorities where most of them live. They were near 50% of the regional populations in much of southern and eastern Ukraine, so probably the majority in many cities. Of course, many of them now prefer the Ukrainian names, but it is not about the independence of 1991 (although the independence seems to have caused a dramatic drop of native Russian-speakers in regions where they were less than a third of the population, between 1989 and 1994). –LPfi (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the widespread local use of Ukrainian is the main point; the point remains what spellings or names are most commonly used in English. The fact that Italian is widely used in Rome won't cause us to change the city's name on this site to Roma. Etc., etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I still don't agree with moving Chernobyl to Chornobyl (even if my personal preference is the latter) because the most common English spelling of the city is the spelling with the e. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, case in point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main reason for this discussion is the difficulty in transliterating the two different Cyrillics used here (Ukrainian and Russian). Wouldn't the easiest solution be to use the standard/most commonly used transliteration of the city name in English (which is generally in line with the Ukrainian version, especially post-February 2022) and put the transliteration of the other language (which is usually the Russian version) as a second one, much like we do with the Trieste page where the German and Slavic versions of the name are listed second? And set it up so that either transliteration will redirect to the page. So, for example, you could type in either "Luhansk" or "Lugansk" and it would redirect you to the "Luhansk" page, where it would say "Luhansk (Russian: Lugansk) is a city...".

I think for the future, since the Ukrainian government has been undergoing general renaming of some cities and regions as part of their recent decommunization laws, we should begin to follow suit with the changes, since those are what the average traveler will encounter when they're there (and most of these changes are regional names anyways), but this will have to be dynamic. Tuyuhun (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is generally what we're doing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored all the Odesa changes as per this discussion and per Wikivoyage:Naming conventions; may do the others pending this discussion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this thing very much entangled in politics. If you watch RT, or people who support Russia in general, they will always use the Russian name (eg. Artyomovsk instead of Bakhmut). And Western media will use the Ukrainian name as a sign of solidarity with the Ukrainian government, though I have met many Americans who still say "Kiev" out of habit regardless their political views. I'd say let's just use the Ukrainian names, and mention the Russian name somewhere in the lede for those Ukrainian cities with ethnic Russian majorities or pluralities. The dog2 (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the important and clear cases have been handled. Check the article title when you mention the place elsewhere, and use that unless you have a good reason. Don't change a name without having a good look at the context. For places still under their Russian-based name, leave the article name alone (i.e. don't rename them) unless they are in an area where little Russian has been spoken. I assume they are mostly about places where Russian has been dominating until recently, and perhaps still is. And don't move articles from Ukrainian-based names to Russian ones even when at the moment controlled by Russia. There is still more heat than light and few need Wikivoyage for travelling there, so things can be sorted out later. Are there any articles where something actually needs to be done? –LPfi (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]