Talk:Kamianets-Podilskyi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ukraine (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Shouldn't this be Kamianets and not Kamyaniets?[edit]

  • Depends on the transcryption system you use. For me the Ukrainian "я" sounds pretty much like English "ya", but others indeed prefer the "ia" version. Halibutt 09:44, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Updating links to actual Ukrainian names and minor edit. History-stub is supposed to develop the 20th century history of the city.
  • BTW, co-operative and competent Polish Wikipedians are invited to discuss the problem of the common Ukrainian-Polish geographical/historical names. Since it's an English encyclopedia (not Polish or Ukrainian) I think making a consensus pattern for naming is the ultimate way. Feel free to answer in my talk page. Best wishes, AlexPU
  • I'm updating the naming in the article. In the intro, I include the full National transliteration of the Ukrainian name, as well as a "conventional" phonetic rendering. In the body of the article I used the simplified National transliteration, since the full version is quite busy-looking, typographically. See Romanization of Ukrainian for details. What do you think of this?
Technically, there's nothing keeping the article from being moved to Kam"ianets'-Podil's'kyi or Kamianets-Podilskyi. Should we stick to the formal National transliteration here? Should we consider using the simplified version for article headings? Michael Z. 2005-03-2 16:53 Z
  • Instead Kamianets-Podilskyi map shows Kam'yanets'-Podil's'kyi.[1]
May be better if somebody rename the article to Kam'yanets'-Podil's'kyi? --80.93.124.87 (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ruthenia/Rus' and on trying to retell longs stories in two sentences[edit]

I would replace Kievan Ruthenia by Kievan Rus'. Aside from other reasons, the link simply points to a redirect. Of the history section, one paragraph needs to be rephrased I think:
After the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1917, Kamianets-Podilskyi became a part of the Ukrainian People's Republic, the Hetmanate, the Directoriya and the Russia-ruled Ukrainian SSR, successively.
This makes little sense aside from the wording "Russia-ruled Ukr SSR". Why should we retell the History of Ukraine here. It would always be clumsy if tried to be put in a single sentence. Later the text says "seeded to Bolshevik Russia" while admitting it was in Ukrainian SSR. I will think of how to rephrase this, but if anyone has ideas, please just edit or respond at this talk page here. Regards, -Irpen 01:38, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

On adding relevant names and even changing their order[edit]

Ok, guys, fine, after my last entry on the article's substance, we got two edits both conserning names and even their order! I can't beleive it! Does anyone agree/disagree about other things. Or the names and especially their order is all the editors care about? My goodness, I am sorry for sounding harsh, but please spend more time to address real issues and less on the reordering names. Besides, don't you guys see how cluttery the lead has become? All right, ranting off. I will try to find time to reorganize the article a little bit and I am afraid that all responses I will get would be another set of complaints about the names and their order (the latter is really over the top!). Or better yet, please someone rewrite or at least respond to the things I raised here earlier. And please no flames and name-calling. --Irpen 22:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

They say God is in the details, and this being a wiki, some of the details will get done and re-done. That said, I'm going to adjust the naming section again. Cheers. Michael Z. 2005-08-5 04:34 Z

Would anybody object to adding Polish name of Kamieniec Podolski? It can go last, I won't mind, but as it was an important PLC fortress often mentioned under the above name in various Polish sources (9160 hits on google), I think Polish name should be added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 08:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not object of course. I was ticked of by the fact that all that happened since I raised a couple of points 2 months ago was one user (Voevoda) adding an extra name (Russian) and another user (Witkacy), moved the Polish name first and Russian last. I am sorry, I had to do something then when I simply objected at talk, but I had no time. I was just upset that users don't have a better use for their time in WP then rearranging names. OK, I could see if this was a majoy issue like adding/removing Varshava to/from Warsaw or Kijow to/from Kiev. But Kamianets-Podilskyi? Anyway, perhaps I overreacted. Whoever helps with the article will get my thanks and a Barnstar :). Cheers, --Irpen 09:13, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Kamianets-Podilskyi was part of Russia, and then of the Soviet Union, for almost two centuries. Furthermore, Russian is actually Ukraine's second language (if not the first one, at least in some regions). I think the Russian version of the name of Kamianets-Podilskyi should be put as well.--87.3.72.225 (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I did revert your addition of the Russian form when you introduced it, 87.3.72.225. While Russian is still widely used in Ukraine, there is only one national language, being Ukrainian. Additionally, this region is hardly Donbas or Kharkiv/Kharkov. That being said, however, there is substantial evidence that the Russian form of the name is still highly prominent in English transliterations (most prominently pertaining to Jewish community heritage). Under this circumstance, it is appropriate that it be used within the body of the article. I'm not convinced that it should be in the lead (which is already cluttered with relevant nomenclature for more closely related ethnic groups within that area), rather that it is better placed in the etymology(?) section. I'll leave it as is for the moment and see whether contributors/editors involved in the article have other preferences.
As a P.S., I'm shifting it to the end of the list as, after the Ukrainian name, the alternative forms have been added in alphabetical order. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

More on adding/rearranging names[edit]

I added back the Polish name to the first line. Not that it was a major issue; feel free to move it back. However, there are some strong arguments for such a solution

  1. The history of the town is mostly related to the fortress and the wars waged by the Polish armies and not necessarily Ukrainian
  2. As such, the town's name is used in its Polish form even nowadays in history books, not to mention books written prior to 1991
  3. Also, the Polish name is slightly more popular than the Ukrainian name in English google (691 as opposed to 516 and 9430 as opposed to 591). While this by no suggests that the English name of the town remains identical to the Polish version, I believe that the latter is notable enough to get its place in the first line. What do you say? Halibutt 08:33, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure the Polish name should follow the Russian one because: a) the town was Russian for more than a century after the Poles had been expelled home; b) because the settlement originated in Kievan Rus, its original Old East Slavic and modern Russian name being identical. Ghirlandajo 17:14, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Do the Google test for English Language sites ONLY and you will see a much smaller difference, small enough to say that google test is inconclusive for this problem (I am not saying it means nothing in general, but here the difference is too small). Also, run a google test for the Russian name (actually there are several ways to transliterate it from Russian and Ukrainian) and this all will get too complicated. So, for this issue, we don't have any meaningful google-test results.
Now, I wrote a paragraph with etymology and names, so that they are all neatly together and do not clutter the first line. You gave good reasons to move back Polish name still. Very well, in no time the Russian name will be there too (trust me) and I have no reason to oppose any of the two names. You will say the Polish name is more relevant than the Russian one. I won't argue with that, but is the Russian name irrelevant enough not to be in the first line? WW2 books call it by Russian name, BTW.
I think the article looks better with names and their origins discussed together and in context just one paragraph down, but I will not revert and will wait for other names soon joining the crowd.
What I would like to suggest, is a voluntarily self-imposed policy advertised among all E. Europeans editors, that to play with names is only allowed when the editor also brings some other useful info to the article, even if just a little bit. On a different, but related dispute, I think that it should almost always be Kiev and not Kyiv, but I do this change only when I am ready to do something else for an article. Such a tradition, will result in faster improvements of many articles, since an opportunity to insert a favorite name would cause enough itching to do some research and extra writing. I will soon formulate my proposal and post it to the notice boards.
As for your change, if this didn't change your mind, let is stay for now. I am not going to revert. Cheers, --Irpen 19:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I did check the English-only links and the Polish name still beats the Ukrainian name by some 200 links (that is by some 15%). I guess it's the effect of Henryk Sienkiewicz who immortalized the place in his books - and the guy, despite being a fairly poor writer, is still one of the most popular Polish authors abroad. Anyway, the google test only supports what my common sense of a simple guy tells me: the place became known in English under its Polish name and is notable mostly because of its history in Poland, so no wonder the Polish name still beats the modern name (official at least since 200 years!).

As to the Russian name - I doubt it's nearly half that notable as the Polish one. Sure, the Russian empire owned the ruins for 200 years, but the place was not notable anymore. Also, did anything important happened there during WWII? Anyway, I'm happy with either option Halibutt 21:25, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

15% is less than a margin of error for the google test, I think. Should be a factor of two to be meaningful because the statistical error of the google test is rather large. K.-P. is a rather obscure place anyway, and there isn't enough statistics. If there are doubts whether the national name is the most widely used in modern time (like Kiev or Odessa still, but Kharkiv or Lviv among the Ukrainian cities), the way to check is, not the google test, but compare the usage of major media (only major channels and newspapers should be counted, because "Google News" checks minor players which do not have a consistent style policy). My favorite is a LexisNexis search of 50 major E.L. papers worldwide. LN gives the list of what he considers the top 50 at its web-site. As per this search, there is no question about any major town in UA, because they do reach the news and the uses are: Kiev, Kharkiv (still KharkOv in WW2 articles), Lviv, Odessa, Dnipropetrovsk, Luhansk, etc. K.-P. is such an obscure place, that the media search would not give you much either. I brought up the Russian name for WW2 usage just as example. My point is that the usage in the WW2 literature in itself is only slightly relevant to the question of what is accepted in the modern usage. I think it is rather used, perhaps less then Polish or Ukrainian, but enough for someone to rightfully insist it belongs to the first line.
If you are interested enough, you can check a long but thorough discussion of this and similar issue at and old, now retired, page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Ukrainian subdivisions#How_the_city_name_.D0.94.D0.BDi.D0.BF.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.BF.D0.B5.D1.82.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B2.D1.81.D1.8C.D0.BA_is_spelled_in_English and the following chapters of that page. However, obscure towns are just that: obscure and the usage in the media is miniscule. Historic names are important, but so is the style of the article and if possible, it is best to keep them in an etymology section. Look at the excellent job by Piotrus when he wrote a 2 sentence summary about Kiev in PLC than mentioned a Polish name which ended a silly edit war started by I don't now remember who. That what I had in mind, when I wrote a paragraph about the origin of the name. With the openness of WP, there is no doubt that there will be a creep of names back to the first line.
That's why I would like to have a good number of users agree on the soft rule that games with the names are only allowed as part of the edit which brings something else into the article (see above). As I said, I follow this for a long time and never change Kyiv for Kiev (a correct current term in my view) unless I am doing something else for the article. I would like to formulate such a proposal and post it at several notice boards. Now I am testing waters and soliciting preliminary opinions on what others think about such an ethics code. Cheers, --Irpen 00:25, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Also, the arguments of whose town was it and for how ling seem quite irrelevant to me here. In short, the town belonged to Kievan Ruthenia for some 180 years, to Turkey for 25 years, to Poland for some 440, to Russia for some 120 years and to USSR for 70. Which means that either we treat the names in the same manner, or we don't mention them at all. The latter is not a good option for me for the reasons I stated above. However, as I said, I won't edit this article any more. Halibutt 07:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

games with names (continued)[edit]

I don't know why Ghirlandajo removed the Polish name from the header, since he failed to explain his edits. As I said, I won't quarrel about it, but a name that is still quite popular in English deserves a mention IMO. Therefore I kindly ask Girlandajo to reconsider.
Also, his argument about the town being Russian for more than a century after the Poles had been expelled home is completely false, as the local Poles were expelled in two major waves: between 1921 and 1925 and then the rest in 1934-37. So, the Russian century ended up pretty quickly. I even know a girl whose grandparents were one of the last families to be resettled to Kazakhstan (she herself was born in Kiev, BTW). Halibutt 23:54, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

This article is one of the few with a separate etymology paragraph about the name and names. Few articles have this luxury, unfortunately. Polish, as well as any other name belongs there, and this will be restored.

Witkacy, I haven't seen you done anything for any article on my watch list but adding or moving names around. While, there is no policy prohibiting you from doing that, I urge you to do something really useful for the article's content if the topics are so important to you that you bother not just to add a Polish name but even switch it with the Russian one in the order of listing. Please see my note at Polish Wikipedians' notice board. --Irpen 01:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, I would not have made an "expelled home" remark myself, irrelevant of who and when did what to who. But as for the specific edit by Girlandajo, he did not remove the PL name, but moved it to the next paragraph devoted specifically to the names and etymology. And his edit, unlike Witkacy's (who just keeps moving names around), made a real factual correction to the article (about the word kamen). That's exactly my point. Why some editors not do something real (even if small) for an article they care so much, that they even switch the order of names' listing? Please take a look, my proposal is not about just names, but it is a call to the users to take a burden to do something for the articles rather than add/remove/switch the names. I don't follow what happends with PL/DE names fights, but I haven't seen, say, Russian editors doing this to the articles about Polish cities.

I see that Witkacy again moved the Polish name inside the article just now. Fine, I will not revert for now, but I would really appreciate more constructive edits from editors who care beyond how many words it takes for their favorite name to get mentioned. --Irpen 03:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I guess the expelled home remark was done out of ignorance and not out of bad will (unless of course someone claims that the home of Poles is Siberia, Kazakhstan or Vorkuta). As to the positive contributions - I'm afraid I can't add more to the article. I started it a long time ago and sadly I can't add much more. Perhaps one of the descriptions from Sienkiewicz could be posted on one of the sister projects, but I don't have the English translation. Any ideas on what might be added? Also, wouldn't it be fair to move all names but the Ukrainian to the ethymological part?

Halibutt 06:44, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt: Yes, that would not just be "fair" but it is a simple common sense. We have a name/etymology section and all names naturally belong there. And Ukrainian name would belong there too, should alternative spelling was more common in modern English L media and the article had a name different from a Ukrainian name (like Kiev or Odessa). I tried adding all names to etymological part and other editors tried it too. But Witkacy's attitude seems to treat all such edits by non-Poles as expression of anti-Polonism, revert them on sight and ignore talk. To make his argument stronger, he runs around with his black book slamming anyone he chooses with or without any reason. Therefore, I am afraid that my following your advise would be useless. Witkacy, will make sure it is reverted. That's why I am crying out loud to Polish editors to express their opinions on the issue and edit the article. If Poles would also say that all names belong to etymology, I hope the silly games would not persist.

And also, you're of course right that "the arguments of whose town was it and for how long is irrelevant". Separate naming paragraph is a logical and simple solution. I repeat, that I would like Polish editors too to express what they think here or by editing the article. Thanks, --Irpen 14:53, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Concur. Let's do this with all geographical places ("Gdańsk" included). logologist 15:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk may seem a broader issue and, besides, I would not dare playing with Gdansk. This here is a totally different story. As agreed for Kiev (now History of Kiev) Polish name belongs to an article in the context of Polish history. Similarly, for K.-P. it belongs with the list of all names, important for the history of the city, which is the etymology paragraph. Had the article not had an etymology paragraph, more names would have belonged to the first line. But now it is just an unnecessary duplication and a manifestation of the fact that a particular editor is stubborn and uncompromising. I will give some time for response here, and, will edit the article as per above, although I would prefer to have this done by someone known to have his opinions respected by Witkacy. --Irpen 16:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Template:History of Kamianets[edit]

Do we really need the {{History of Kamianets}} templat? As I see it it is ugly and takes up a whole lot of space, which can be used for historic photographs instead. I think that it is better to have the history in text not in timeline form.. —dima/talk/ 16:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it, but if anyone wants it back, feel free to add it.. —dima/talk/ 18:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I have resored the timeline. Slightly reduced and moved left. I think it's a good illustration of the town's history, adding the useful perspective. --Lysytalk 11:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The way I see it in my browser, it only scrunches the text into a "narrow corridor.." All of this info can be found in the text.. I would like more if we can remove the large gaps of space between years 1062 1241 1352 and 1671.. Is there a way to do that? —dima/talk/ 17:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)