Jump to content

Talk:Odesa

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 203.219.83.10 (talk) at 02:04, 23 August 2022 (→Such a holy crap!: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

Dyn32 (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Hello. I am a resident of Odesa, I ask you to edit this article, because the Latin name of this city is incorrect on the main page and and by the main link. According to the Ukrainian spelling, this city is called Odesa (with one letter S), while Odessa (with two letters S) is a translation from Russian language. Since in Ukraine the state language is Ukrainian and Russian is the language of national minorities, it will be correct to use the form with one S. Because of the wrong name of the city, many foreigners confuse its name and spell it incorrectly, which in a way offends the people of the city and me in particular. Thanks in advance.[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please supply a reliable source to support what you say, we will not be able to change it without a couple good sources. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting references for changing spelling from Odessa to Odesa

To support the change of spelling from Odessa to Odesa, here are the references to consider:

  • Declaration of United Nation Group of Experts in regard to adoption of Ukrainian spelling[1]
  • Romanization system in Ukraine document stating the recommended spellings [2]
  • Recent adoption of the Ukrainian romanization system for geographical names by the US Board of Geographic names[3]

In Romanization of Ukrainian article, Odessa remains as the only city in Ukraine, including Temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine that is listed with spelling under the old BGN transliteration conventions from 1965.

Another consideration is the wider adoption of Ukrainian spelling among the Odessa population: 5-fold growth of Ukrainian-speaking population in Odessa over the recent 6 years[4]

I don't see any strong compelling arguments why the change of spelling to Odesa should be reverted. Internetyev (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetyev (talk • contribs) 03:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about the spelling, it is about the most common name in English.It is also incorrect that Odessa is the only Ukrainian city with the most common English name different from Romanization.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My wording implies that Odessa is the only city in Ukraine that is listed _on Wikipedia_ under old BGN conventions of 1965, which is correct. I do not state that Odessa is "the only Ukrainian city with the most common English name different from Romanization". I cannot find arguments to state that one variant is more common than the other because it is subjective and does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. Internetyev (talk) 07:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Romanization of Одеса is Odesa. Nobody is disputing this. I reverted your addition exactly for this reason.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have at this point 27 edits on Wikipedia. You are not the first person with less than 100 edits who comes here and, without having much understanding of how Wiokipedia works, tries to impose their vision. You are certainly not the first person who tries to get this article moves to Odessa. None of them could see the arguments why the article should be Odessa, but the consensus still was for Odessa. Try reading the archives of this page, may be you then understand why.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No clue what you are talking about when you mentioned "romanization", but the name of the article should most likely indeed be Odesa. Sources linked to below. The same reasons and sources also apply for Kyiv, Lviv and Kharkiv which already follow the ukrainian naming pattern. --Blomsterhagens (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/res/res_10_9.htm
  2. ^ https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/10th-uncsgn-docs/econf/E_CONF.101_84_Roman_system_Ukraine_eng.pdf
  3. ^ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/romanization-systems
  4. ^ https://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/seventh_municipal_survey_may_2021_eng_-_v2.pdf
Recent news maps on many American, Canadian the British television news services have maps that are usinng the Ukrainian spelling for Odesa during reporting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cast my vote in favour of "Odesa". It's a Ukrainian city, the official Ukrainian spelling is "Odesa", and the trend in the west has been to adopt proper Ukrainian transliterations of Ukrainian place names. I'd also like to say to Ymblanter, stop with the "I've edited more than you" bias. Everyone's say is equal. It rather sounds like you're trying to dictate your will here over the majority. -- 85.220.33.217 (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article should probably be renamed to "Odesa"

In line with the recent renaming of Kiev to Kyiv, the same reasons should also apply to this article.

Source:

Edit: Also Lviv and Kharkiv seem to be following the Ukrainian naming style. --Blomsterhagens (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME. Mellk (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME would support the name of the article being Odesa. All official establishments of the city, and the country itself, including the airport, use "Odesa" in english. --Blomsterhagens (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

That has been extensively discussed at this very page, and so far the consensus invariably was opposite to your conclusion. Seriously, do you think that a high-profile Wikipedia article has a demonstrably wrong name for twenty years, and you are the first person to notice this?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kyiv used to be "Kiev" for 15+ years on Wikipedia, so yes, I think article names change constantly. "This is how it's always been" isn't a valid argument on wikipedia. --Blomsterhagens (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the argument "the article has a wrong name period" is even less valid. For Kiev, what one one needed was a topic-banned user evading ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Odessa is wrong. Odessa is a valid, correct, alternative spelling. Sorry if my original post made it look like I thought Odessa is wrong or wanted to exclude it. I don't. I think it should be listed as a correct alternative spelling. It's just not the officially used name anymore in english by the city itself or the country. By WP:COMMONNAME, the name of the article should be Odesa and "Odessa" should be listed as the alternative spelling. Exactly what is done now, just reversed. Currently "Odesa" is listed as the alternative spelling, but it should be the other way around. --Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. WP:COMMONNAME is not about what name is used officially. It is politically unacceptable to use Odessa now in Ukraine, but the Ukrainian government is not an institution with any authority to establish the English usage. WP:COMMONNAME is about how the city is actually called in English, by reliable English sources, ideally independent of the Ukrainian government. Please read the archives of the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To add, "Chornobyl" is also the official name for Chernobyl, but very few people write it like that. Moving that article to Chornobyl because of the official spelling would be a mistake. Mellk (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chernobyl is a terrible example here. Odesa is a city of hundreds of thousands and Chernobyl is a ghost town. The Ukrainian govenrment decides what its cities are called, not historical Russian claims. Acknowledging Ukrainian sovereignty requires using the Ukrainian preferred spelling. Refusing to do so is tantamount to supporting Russian claims of sovereignty over Ukrainian lands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.255.72 (talk • contribs)
This discussion is about forms to use for names and Chernobyl is a name at least as familiar to English-speakers as to that of the subject of this article, so a perfectly pertinent example. Governments decide no such thing on Wikipedia, though you can bring that argument back if you manage to overturn COMMONNAME first. By extension of your argument, does the Ukrainian government require us to say Ukraïna in English now, or do they accept that we have our own long-standing common name? Reference to the Russian term "Chechnya" (for Noxçiyçö) reflects common usage in English and says nothing in regard to support for Russian sovereignity. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, Google News Search gives its maximum number of 100 results for each of "Odesa" Ukraine -Wikipedia and "Odessa" Ukraine -Wikipedia. Google Scholar Search of academic sources, limited to 2020–present, returns 11,400 and 15,500, respectively. It could be argued that there is no longer a single WP:COMMONNAME in English. Perhaps we should research what current references say. —Michael Z. 02:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google Advanced Book Search (English-language sources) is really showing off its “total results” bug in these searches. It looks like Google’s estimates are nonsense, but counting actual results returned does not clearly favour Odessa, and may indicate a dramatic opposite trend (viz. WP:GOOG).
Looking at sources suggested by WP:Widely accepted name which are up-to-date and accessible:
The two English-language dictionaries use context labels, indicating that in a Ukrainian subject context, Odesa is the most commonly used spelling. An article on a city in Ukraine is an example of such a context.
Using the spelling Odesa also fulfils the WP:CRITERIA of precision (distinguishing from other subjects listed in Odessa (disambiguation)), and of consistency since nearly all Ukrainian place names are spelled according to the Ukrainian standard system of Romanization, as recommended by WP:UKR (and consistent with Nova Odesa).
WP:MODERNPLACENAME tells us to use a current name. Since the last move request was twelve and a half years ago, it’s about time to check consensus. —Michael Z. 04:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really thorough research into this question. Thank you very much! --Blomsterhagens (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As of July 3, 2022:
 —Michael Z. 21:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some other sources popped up.
 —Michael Z. 01:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article name should be changed as suggested. Ukraine's national language is Ukrainian and Odesa is a part of Ukraine. Simple.XANIA - ЗAНИAWikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk 14:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, but explicitly contradicts to the Wikipedia policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Kyiv precedent shows that it does not. The rational from that decision is directly applicable here. —Michael Z. 21:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd strongly support using the Ukrainian spelling with one 's' (one 'с' in Cyrillic). I notice that this spelling is now being used by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox, BBC, The Times, N.Y. Times, L.A. Times, and Houston Chronicle. The Washington Post and Chicago Tribune are outliers as the only major media I found using the old Russian spelling.RichardMathews (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 February 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Votes here are fairly evenly split after a week and a half of listing, and the evidence from reliable sources is fairly evenly split too, with it being demonstrated that Odessa is still extensively used by many sources even since the start of the war while others use Odesa. As such, the page remains where it is for now, and Golden's suggestion that we "wait a few more months and then open a new Requested Move" seems a sensible one. Hopefully by that time a clearer picture of recent trends will have emerged, and a proper WP:NAMECHANGES assessment can be made.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:MODERNPLACENAME and WP:NPOVTITLE. Please see additional reasons for renaming to Odesa at Talk:Kyiv and this talk page. English language news sources use the Odesa spelling in line with their change from Kiev to Kyiv. For example, see AP News, CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post, The Guardian, BBC, Financial Times, Reuters, CBC, Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. wbm1058 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The RM at Talk:Odessa Oblast was submitted within a minute of this request, with idential |reason= given. I am consolidating the discussion about both to this page as I see no plausible scenario for moving one of these without concurrently moving the other. – wbm1058 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator - I started the page move request based on the Ukrainian government's (and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) requests to have Ukrainian cities renamed to the romanizations of their Ukrainian spelling (see KyivNotKiev and CorrectUA). Odesa is one of the cities specifically mentioned along with Kyiv, and the spelling Odessa is stated as being the archaic, Soviet-era spelling of the city. I realize that it may be too soon to request a page move as most reliable English sources have not settled on a spelling (the sources listed in my initial request are only articles that use the Odesa spelling), and currently the most common name may still be the original spelling Odessa. English news sources may also not necessarily have a standard style guide regarding the spelling of Odesa while they do have one for Kyiv. However, I still felt there was merit in proposing a page move based on current news articles already beginning to use the Odesa spelling and most current maps and geographical sources which do use the Odesa spelling. Books on the subject will most likely use the older Odessa spelling as it is most likely too soon to see if reliable book sources are using the Odesa spelling, unless they were published in the past 5-10 years. The new article name currently does not pass WP:COMMONNAME or WP:RECENTISM (although WP:MODERNPLACENAME recommends the most recent, modern version of the name, which would apply in this case if using the arguments made by the Ukrainian government), so I am fine with the page move being closed if there are no additional comments. Closing remarks: I do agree that Odessa is the better spelling for the city based on the original Greek city name Odessos, but I respect the Ukrainian government's request (and the Ukrainian people's) to use the Odesa spelling in English, just like with Kyiv and that is what I will use. I know that the article title for this city on the English wiki is based on the most recent and common name in English, so the fact that it is romanized from Ukrainian as Odesa may not be an appropriate reason to use the Odesa spelling. I also acknowledge the fact that currently a large plurality of people in Odesa are Russian speakers, and they have a right to use the original Odessa spelling if that is what they choose. We will see in the next 10-20 years if Odessa will remain the common name in English (most likely outcome) or if it will change to Odesa (less likely outcome), and this article can be moved if needed at that time. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose, too soon. Even if some media started to call the city Odesa today, it is not yet the indication that this is the most common name in English. Right now the usage is chaotic, and does not prove anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
can someone provide a proof of chaotic usage? are there any mentions that use "Odessa" spelling? Internetyev (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure--Ymblanter (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the topic starter is canvassing people who should be clearly favorable to the move arguments: [5]--Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I requested comments from users that started the discussions for renaming the article in the sections above. Since you already replied, there was no reason to notify you as well. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer This is clear WP:CANVASSING: of the above editors who were engaged in the previous discussion, OjdvQ9fNJWl only notified User:Blomsterhagens (see here) and User:Mzajac (see here), these two users were in favor of the move. OjdvQ9fNJWl did not notify the other two users in that discussion, User:Mellk and User:Ymblanter (who were opposed to the move), hence this is textbook canvassing. Eccekevin (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Accusations of canvassing is disruptive to the topic being discussed in this requested move. I've notified all users who previously participated in the discussion regardless if they have seen this or not, and only those editors that participated in previous talk sections about renaming. I don't believe this is considered canvassing considering that WP:CANVAS states that " it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus," and that it is acceptable to "notify users editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I personally don't care how the article is named on the English Wikipedia, but if it's "Odessa" in the Oxford's Lexico, Collins Dictionary, Franklin Meriam-Webster Dictionary and other reputable dictionaries, then it should probably remain "Odessa" (what most dictionaries tell about "Odesa" is that it's a Ukrainian variant of the name, i.e. a transliteration of the Ukrainian name "Одеса"). Also, it's not true that media have switched over to "Odesa" and those listed above seem to be cherry-picked because the same media still use "Odessa" in their recent news reports (see Reuters, CNN, CBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, BBC etc.). As for the origins of the name "Odessa" in the English language, even if it was widely accepted as a transliteration of the Russian name "Одесса" long time ago, there's nothing problematic considering that Russian speakers form a vast majority in the city. Importantly, the Russian language doesn't belong exclusively to Russia because it has many native speakers outside of its current borders, and this distinction is clearly noted in the language through the adjectives "русский" (="Russian") and "российский" (= "of Russia"). I have many Ukrainian friends who hold a grudge against Russia, but they still use Russian as their primary language. Finally, the timing of this nomination is probably tied with Russia's invasion of Ukraine in the attempt to get increased support from people sympathising with the Ukrainian people, so that's why it was necessary to tell something more about the Russian language as opposed to Russia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. With what's going on at the moment, sources are mixed. I don't believe media have settled on one spelling or the other, so the current page title should remain intact. O.N.R. (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. During the Soviet era, Ukrainian geographical names had been transliterated into English via those names' Russian forms, but since Ukraine has been an independent country for over three decades, Ukrainian names should be transliterated into English via their Ukrainian forms. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That’s not true. Mark Twain in his travel book The Innocents Abroad, first published in 1869, uses the name “Odessa”. That was clearly the common name of the city in the pre-Soviet era. Also, the English dictionaries have still not adopted “Odesa” as a more preferable name than “Odessa” (note that “Kyiv” and “Beijing” have replaced “Kiev” and “Peking” in the dictionaries), so it’s not our business to discuss how names should be transliterated into English when linguists have already taken care about them.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A wider historical view can be indeed taken and the sentence can be slightly enhanced to state, "During the Tsarist and Soviet eras...", but the basic argument remains the same and the decision remains with consensus. The move from Kiev to Kyiv was likely influenced by ongoing events and the same may turn out to be true here. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A change may, or may not, happen. "Odesa" has a particularly unlettered appearance, doing violence to the symmetry of its origin, Ὀδησσός, Odessos, and, even moreso, when placed into the feminine form. And so follows the "Odessa" name adoption by a number of cities. That the the asymmetric form will become the English standard is not a given. Tachypaidia (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are many places in the English-speaking world founded by emigrants from the city and named "Odessa" after it (see Odessa (disambiguation)), so it's very unwise to confuse people just because someone thinks the English language should be revisited because of a name recently popularised and not widely accepted by specialists in the English language.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Geographical names in the English-speaking New World date from the arrival of settlers in the 18th and 19th century. Some of those names are now historically outdated, but continue to exist as reminders of the time of their founding — Kief, North Dakota; Konigsberg, California; Breslau, Ontario; Cracow, Queensland; Cracow, Michigan; Calcutta, Indiana; Calcutta, Ohio or Calcutta, West Virginia. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire basis of your argument for "support" is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:MODERNPLACENAME, conducting an elementary reading of the actual text of the guideline makes this apparent. The name of Odessa has not changed, the discrepancy here is merely that of spelling/pronunciation based on language and common usage, with WP:COMMONNAME clearly applying here as "Odessa" is used far more commonly than "Odesa".BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's you that hasn't read WP:MPN properly. Spelling is explicitly included - In some cases it is not the local name but the spelling of the name in English that has changed over time. For example, Nanjing, as the contemporary pinyin spelling, is used for the name of the article rather than Nanking. Turnagra (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:BUZZLIGHTYEAR99, I’ll refer you to a relevant precedent: the detailed decision, citing WP:MODERNPLACENAME, on the move of Kyiv, another city whose name has not changed and has two English WP:COMMONNAMEs (spelling variants): Talk:Kyiv/Archive 7#Requested move 28 August 2020. —Michael Z. 18:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer A WP:CANVASSING incident occurred involving this user. Eccekevin (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is on my watchlist.Please tag people when you try to discredit their opinion instead of just writing “this user.” —Michael Z. 03:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to discredit anyone, I am just alerting the closer of WP:CANVASSING (which was not done by you, but the user who canvessed you). Eccekevin (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eccekevin, sorry, I only meant to suggest that the closer should not weight my input by the presumption of unfairness. —Michael Z. 14:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, WP:CANVAS states that " it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus," and that it is acceptable to "notify users editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)," and that is what I did since User:Mzajac previously participated in a discussion about renaming the article in the previous sections. I don't believe my notifications are considered canvassing considering I have notified all users who participated in the previous renaming discussion. Please stop with the canvassing warnings as that is also considered disruptive. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This makes no sense. If you say that Odessa currently is more used, then by WP:COMMONNAME that's what should be used. And if you believe that eventually Odesa will be more common, that doesn't affect Wikipedia because Wikipedia does not predict the future or speculate (see WP:CRYSTALBALL). We don't deal in "eventually". Eccekevin (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just linked articles I saw at the time, no cherry picking, while yours clearly have been to make a POINT. Of course, I had the COMMONNAME argument as my third point because I find it the weakest overall, either direction. If "Odesa" is the official anglicisation, it is plain insulting to use an old holdout spelling, no matter how widely used in media it is. But as someone's research in the section above shows, over the years, "Odesa" has been increasingly used and recently overtook "Odessa" across all sources, anyway. If a company changes its name, which is a fair comparison to the world being told they are spelling something wrong, then you will find more sources with the old name, but still move the article to the new name straight away because that is what it is named. Kingsif (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read WP:POINT before you reference it. It is not "disruptive" to point out that I can easily find exactly the same sources referenced in the request using the current name and not the proposed name. That means we cannot just use a few news sources to determine what the common name of the article is. "Odesa" might be the WP:OFFICIALNAME, but that is irrelevant, as we do not blindly use whatever the official name of anything is, regardless of if someone finds it "insulting" or not. You might find it insulting, but if you cannot prove that the WP:COMMONNAME of the article has changed: tough. Kyiv was changed not because people found the use of "Kiev" insulting but because it could be actually proved that "Kyiv" is now the common name. That is the same process we use here and up to this point it has not been proved that "Odesa" is the common name. As I said, the only evidence that has been provided is a few news articles which are inconsistent in their use and it can be easily shown that a wide varriety of news sources are using "Odessa". I read the conversation above this request and whomever "someone" is hasn't shown that the name has changed as no one in that conversation had done so. --Spekkios (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read the note there, which as I recall says that POINTy behavior isn't limited to disruptive edits. Now, we do not blindly use whatever the official name of anything is [...] if you cannot prove that the WP:COMMONNAME of the article has changed: tough - nonsense. Well, the user in the thread above in question is Mzajac, who compiled Google data (recommended for RMs), as well as pointing to the WP:MODERNPLACENAME, which says For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one... In some cases it is not the local name but the spelling of the name in English that has changed over time. For example, Nanjing, as the contemporary pinyin spelling, is used for the name of the article rather than Nanking. - literally instructing to use the most up-to-date local (i.e. Ukrainian) name and English spelling of such, even if there are masses of sources still using older ones. And for that last reason and just using Wikipedia, I very much dispute that COMMONNAME is always superior to an official name (your use of "anything" suggest you believe nothing has its article given an official over common name); do you call a TV a "TV"? Or a "television set"? Because our article is television set. Just the first object I looked at above my laptop screen. Give it up with claiming Wikipedia always uses COMMONNAME. Kingsif (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to have to explain how exactly WP:POINTy applies to my original comment, as now you are telling me to read WP:NOTPOINTy. Are you saying that my comment is WP:NOTPOINTy? Then why bring up WP:POINTy in the first place if it's WP:NOTPOINTy?
Anyway, WP:MODERNPLACENAME would apply if it can be shown the modern name is "Odesa". That has not happened here. It is quite clear that "Odessa" is still in strong use throughout English-speaking media. It also doesn't tell us to use the Ukrainian name as it specifically tells us to use the modern established English name.
As for the results by Mzajac I repeat what I said before: they have not shown that the name has changed. Their results are quite flawed, for example:
  • Not filtering out non-English language results in Google scholar. There are 4,400 results for "Odesa" but 10,800 for "Odessa" since 2020.
  • Google news search shows 51,000 results for "Odesa" but 142,000 for "Odessa".
  • I don't know how they are counting book results. In 2016 there were about 4000 results for "Odesa" and 33,000 for "Odessa". Similar results for the same search but from 2020 to today.
Finally, I thought it was quite obvious that I was talking about geographic terms such as countries or cities. These almost always use the common name of the place and not official. TV is an acronym for television and is covered by WP:NCA. There has to be an extremely good reason why we should not use the common name and so far all that has been presented is a few news articles that I have already easily shown to be inconsistent. --Spekkios (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Spekkios please tag someone when you explicitly criticize their statements, in case your criticism is less than authoritative. Please read WP:SET: I don’t believe anything there implies that a search test is “flawed” if it doesn’t employ “filtering” the way you do. It does suggest that Google’s estimate of number of results is often pure bunk. You have to go to the last page of results, and sometimes it shows that the actual number is vastly different, other times it is clearly still bunk. And it’s helpful to link the last page. For example, your last two searches (2020 to today) yield
How do you accomplish “filtering out non-English language results in Google scholar”? I can’t find any language filter or advanced search for Scholar.
And I don’t know how you determined Google News results total, because it doesn’t show them for me, and the only way I can make comparisons is to choose a short time frame and count every one while scrolling to the bottom of the endless page, where it loads up to 100. For example, when I search in the last hour, I get Odesa 9,[9] Odessa 16, [10]but it changes every time I reload the search.
Anyway, my point isn’t that Odesa is clearly the most common name, but that there are two commonly used names, and we should interpret the results much the same way we did in the clear and unchallenged consensus decision on Kyiv. —Michael Z. 16:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the inaccuracies in the number of results Google returns: I was unaware that it could be vastly inaccurate. The filtering was intended to filter results to Ukraine only. Google scholar has a setting so it can only return results from a certain language (in the left hand drop-down box). I'm not sure what the difference is between a Google search for news and a search using Google News but it again may produce different results. I can get 41 vs 208 when seraching in the last 24 hours. --Spekkios (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except Wikipedia doesn't change things on the basis of "might as well." It changed Kiev to Kyiv because the vast majority of English sources are using Kyiv in print and in modern conversations. With Odessa it's the opposite with Odessa being more popular. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You think I'm stupid, don't you? Great Mercian (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. I took it exactly as you posted. If you meant otherwise I missed it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bangalore is not at Bengaluru despite Kolkata, Mumbai, etc. --Spekkios (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
relying primarily on recent sources WP:RECENTISM, and against policy. Eccekevin (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is WP:RECENTISM, which is against policy. Eccekevin (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RECENTISM doesn't apply here at all. Odesa has been the Ukrainian spelling for a long time unless they changed the language recently and "Odesa" is the name used by recently published, reliable, English language media. That is more than enough to qualify for WP:COMMONNAME. Desertambition (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Ukrainian spelling doesn't matter at all; what matters is the English spelling. And as has been continuously shown, English language media has been at best ambiguous in the spelling used. --Spekkios (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Searching Odessa on google news gives more recent results about Odessa, Texas than Ukraine. Whereas searching Odesa has much more results about Odesa, Ukraine. Seems pretty clear that Odesa is the WP:COMMONNAME. Desertambition (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't you filter out the Texas results then and search for Ukraine specifically? --Spekkios (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to filter out Texas results. If we just filter out the results we don't want then of course the results look more favorable. Fact is that more and more news agencies are using "Odesa" in recent reporting. That meets WP:COMMONNAME requirements. Desertambition (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we need to filter out results we don't want. Why are the results for Texas relevant when we are trying to find the common name for a Ukrainian city? --Spekkios (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that were true, we would have "Beograd" instead of "Belgrade" and "Moskva" instead of "Moscow".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, significant coverage in English language media does meet WP:COMMONNAME requirements. Belgrade and Moscow are not accurate comparisons. Desertambition (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Desertambition: Why are they not accurate comparisons?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Moscow/Moskva, Belgrade/Beograd, Warsaw/Warszawa, Prague/Praha, Munich/München arguments were all on display during the Kyiv/Kiev discussions and were dismissed as inapplicable simply because those are all stable English-language exonyms that are used without a challenge by the countries in question when those countries issue English-language texts.
On the other hand, city names such as Kiev/Kyiv, Odessa/Odesa, Peking/Beijing, Calcutta/Kolkata or Bombay/Mumbai are challenged by the involved countries because of historical baggage and are no longer stable English-language exonyms, with English-language media using the revised exonyms, which is not the case with Moskva or Beograd. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What the involved countries do is completely irrelevant because they're not official regulators of the English language. The name "Odessa" was widely used in the English language long before the modern Russian and Ukrainian literary languages were codified. Moreover, it's evident that the English dictionaries haven't adopted "Odesa" as the main name of the city, but they did it with "Kyiv", so it's clear that this is a case much closer to that of "Belgrade" or "Moscow". I can live with any decision at the end but it's utterly ridiculous to mutilate the language by dumping centuries-old literature and dismissing current dictionaries just because there's a recent tendency in the media to use "Odesa" more often. At the very least, give the linguists writing dictionaries a say.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we are expected to agree that "it's utterly ridiculous to mutilate the language by dumping centuries-old literature" in choosing "Odesa" over "Odessa", then we would have to accept that we acted with equal ridiculousness in dumping Peking for Beijing, Bombay for Mumbai, Calcutta for Kolkata and Kiev for Kyiv. Media outlets follow manuals of style, all of which indicate Belgrade and Moscow, not Beograd and Moskva. Thus, when we see reliable sources following revised manuals that indicate "Odesa" rather than "Odessa", we know that time has come to follow suit. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's again not true. Many reputable English dictionaries have adopted "Beijing" (see Oxford's Lexico, Collins Dictionary, Meriam-Webster Dictionary), "Mumbai" (see Oxford's Lexico, Collins Dictionary, Meriam-Webster Dictionary), "Kolkata" (see Oxford's Lexico, Collins Dictionary) and "Kyiv" (see Oxford's Lexico, Collins Dictionary, Meriam-Webster Dictionary) as primary names, whereas none have done so for "Odesa" (see Oxford's Lexico, Collins Dictionary, Franklin Meriam-Webster Dictionary and note that Collins Dictionary doesn't even mention the existence of "Odesa" as an alternative name). You're welcome to argue about "Odesa" at any time once you discover that specialists in the English language, reputable dictionaries or high-ranked publishers have switched over to that name. But arguing that we should change the name because some media, whose content isn't even proofread, decided to use it alongside "Odessa" in the absence of even slightest approval by the scientific community is nothing other than a clear mutilation of the language.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Clear mutilation of the language" by Financial Times or NPR "whose content isn't even proofread"? When events move at an accelerated pace, orthography used by reliable sources is likewise revised. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s nice. Please ping me when it’s officially revised by linguists in reputable dictionaries or handbooks of orthography and I’ll vote to support the change. Until then, it’s too soon and a crystal-ball territory.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not even close. Eccekevin (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That represents all of the things listed in Odessa (disambiguation). Search Google Books with a real narrowed search, page to the end and count the actual results, and tell me how close it is (2020 to present): Odesa 40, Odessa 25. —Michael Z. 20:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only including 2020-present is WP:RECENTISM. But also, searching for "Odesa" (even since 2020) literally asks you did you mean "Odessa" Ukraine -Wikipedia. JSTOR (which is modre indicative of Academia than GoogleBooks) has 10 times more results for Odessa Ukraine than Odesa Ukraine. Even just after 2020, it's 49 results for Odessa and 15 for Odesa, so even in the past two years there is the academic sources use Odessa more. Eccekevin (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per nom--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm not sure the correct Ukrainian transliteration clearly has caught on with most English-language sources, although Kyiv has certainly overtaken Kiev. Until I see more reliable English-language sources using "Odesa", I'd say wait. Would a personal name be different? Example: as far as I'm aware, Wladimir Klitschko has never gone by his real-name "Volodymyr Klychko" outside Ukraine, so that would be surely wouldn't be changed per WP:COMMONNAME. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per nom. The name of the city is Odesa in the official local language. Stationary (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this is English-language Wikipedia and we should use the commonly-used English-language name. What it is called in the official language of Ukraine is not relevant to what it is called in English. As for the future, WP:CRYSTAL applies: at present lots of English-language TV programmes have "Odesa" on their maps; but their language skills are such that they usually pronounce Kharkiv wrongly (the first K should be silent). I do not think we can rely on these people for what places are called or how to pronounce the words.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a silent k: the first consonant in Kharkiv is the one in loch and Bach. I have found different English dictionaries which give its pronunciation as /k/,[11] /h/,[12] or /x/.[13] —Michael Z. 14:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The "recent" usages being referred to are a result of the on-going events; and are way too soon; and are clearly chaotic as put by Ymblanter — DaxServer (t · c) 13:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The established name in English, probably since its establishment by the Russian Empire in 1794, is "Odessa". The city is bilingual, both Russian and Ukrainian being common among the inhabitants. I found that out when I was there in 2005 and talked at length to a native son. Zaslav (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Very clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose' It is very clear upon a search that Odessa is by far the preferred name, even by pro Ukrainian English news sources.Thespearthrower (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is Odesa actually an accurate transliteration of Оде́са? The Ukrainian Cyrillic character "c" represents an "ss" sound, not the "z" sound that "Odesa" would imply. The rendering "Odesa" slavishly transliterates the sequence of individual Ukrainian characters, not the pronunciation of the word as a whole that the characters represent. Cf the sound file of the pronunciation. That the "ss" is rendered "cc" in Russian and "c" in Ukrainian is neither here nor there in English; it's an "ss" sound so should be represented so in the transliteration. The common rendering in English, "Odessa", is a more accurate transliteration of Оде́са. "Odesa" misrepresents the Ukrainian. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many revised / updated transliterations into English, such as Beijing, Mumbai, Kolkata, Yangon or Kyiv still fall short of providing a truly satisfactory rendering of each city's native-language pronunciation. However, those revised / updated transliterations, as well as the transliteration into English of the city name Odesa, are the transliterations satisfactory to the cities' native countries {see "And Odesa (not Odessa!) shines — day and night!"} and have been accepted into use by reliable sources (many, but not all reliable sources, in the case of Odesa) without attempting to resort to more precise alternative transliterations. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seem perverse to move from a commonplace, widely-known, widely-used transliteration which does not "fall short of providing a truly satisfactory rendering of (the) pronunciation" in either language to one which is actively unsatisfactory in both. The promotion of "Odesa" on the basis of literation differences between two schemes entirely distinct to English seems solely an opportunity to falsely indicate maximal differentiation between the pronunciations which is not there, with the consequent disbenefit of promoting mispronunciation of the Ukrainian form. Oppose. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mutt Lunker is mixing up the notion of transliteration with phonemic transcription, which we do not use. Odesa is the transliteration from Ukrainian, and Odessa from Russian, according to every single English-language and international system (see Romanization of Ukrainian and Romanization of Russian). I’m pretty sure no systemic transcription uses a double S for the s sound, either. —Michael Z. 17:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Between an e and an a, your actual English would tend to use a double s for the s sound. Not doing so will inevitably confuse people.
So only those English speakers who have studied these systems have a fighting chance of pronouncing this rendering of Оде́са correctly? How much under 1% will that be? "o-dez-a" or "o-dee-za" it is then.
All this aside though, WP:COMMONNAME. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose: Odessa is the name used in almost all English-language reliable sources, which is the correct policy to apply. If we start choosing local preferences instead, soon we should have Roma, Moskva, Athenai. Leave well alone. Moonraker (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the previously mentioned exceptions, all remaining local preferences are represented by stable exonyms. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russian marines landing in Odessa

This has been indeed reported in the morning by a number of reliable sources, but all of them quote Anton Gerashchenko, they did not make own research. It has never been followed up and seems yo be disinformation. If no follow-up has been found, and absent new developments, I am going to remove the sentence tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were airstrikes reported on the first day of the invasion. Should they be added? Seems notable considering the 2014 violence and attacks are also mentioned in the postwar section. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they have been independently confirmed (not just reported citing Ukrainian/Russian sources), yes, sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

Odessa is the Russian spelling. Odesa is the Ukrainian and is most proper. Same with Kyiv. It is Kyiv NOT Kiev 2600:1012:B01F:5873:4918:61E8:D7FA:F5E6 (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: There is a page move request already in progress. Kahastok talk 21:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ମୁଁ ଡଚି ଗଲି

What this meaning 42.109.129.220 (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably that you have some wrong fonts installed.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use the spelling Kyiv because this is not a historical article

User:Ymblanter performed a revert of user:Craigrottman to restore the use of Kiev not Kyiv spelling, with the edit summary “current consensus is to use Kiev in historical context.” This is false. The scope of the decision he refers to was “whether to use Kyiv or Kiev in an article.” This geographical article about the city of Odessa is clearly an “unambiguously current / ongoing topics (e.g. Kyiv Metro),” where “Kyiv is preferred,” as defined in that consensus. Like this one, the exemplary article has a “History” section, so this is not what it calls an “edge case.” The consensus is clearly to use the Kyiv spelling in all articles not subject to that decision, such as this one, and we shouldn’t start expanding its scope in opposition to the larger and better established consensus for the main article title Kyiv. —Michael Z. 18:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of this consensus of this question has already been tested, and the result was a six-month topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mzajac: Ymblanter has a track record of false allegations and inappropriate conduct but nothing will happen because they're an admin. The conduct on this talk page is inappropriate. If Ymblanter wants to accuse other users of canvassing or threaten bans, that can be dealt with on a talk page or WP:ANI. Threatening blocks over such trivial stuff is WP:ADMINABUSE. We should be able to talk about these things without such hostility. Desertambition (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not treat anybody with blocks, but indeed at some point I blocked your account for indefinite duration. Moreover, I am not acting as admin in this topic area. There is no way I can block Mzajac myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one is participating in WP:BRD by discussing the edit, I’m going to go ahead and reinstate it. If one insists that it is against consensus, please get some more than our three opinions.
The name Kyiv appears in the article eight times, and it is poor editorial practice to arbitrarily change one of them. —Michael Z. 16:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So your understanding of WP:BRD is that you are free to revert the edits to the state you prefer. Great. I will remember this.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you’d like to discuss the edit or solicit more opinions, then revert again, and proceed. Or let us know how you’d like to resolve this two-to-one dispute. —Michael Z. 20:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And now you suggest that I use edit-warring as a dispute resolution avenue. Also great, in particular, from an administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has been already resolved at the Kiev/Kyiv RfC, which result you have proven incapable of accepting, yet again here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) I explained why that does not apply here. 2) regardless of that and as I pointed out above, your preferred version leaves inconsistent spelling in the article, and so does not accomplish what you want, either. You’ve failed to respond to my arguments. —Michael Z. 20:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to back Kiev, because it is absurd massaging the past to make it comply with the political needs of the present. But there is a problem; it confuses the readers using different spellings of Kiev in the article. The city has not changed name. Given that the politically-motivated and lobbied-for decision was to use Київ instead of the English-language name we ought to use that name, per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to impose the community consensus. This is the only thing I want. Actually, pretty much in every situation. What you say you "explained" is inconsistent with the consensus of the community. This reflects your own understanding, which has been previously demonstrated to be incompatible with this mentioned consensus. That's it. Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So we have a dispute, now with four opinions. I’m not totally clear on Toddy1’s, but there isn’t a clear consensus for your revert. I suggest you try to change our minds or post an RFC if it’s not clear to you. —Michael Z. 20:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We already had an RfC. I am not going to open the second one. Just accept the results of the first one and revert yourself. Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean this RFC: Talk:Kyiv/Archive 9#RfC: Kyiv/Kiev in other articles ? The consensus on “whether to use Kyiv or Kiev in an article: For unambiguously current / ongoing topics (e.g. Kyiv Metro), Kyiv is preferred.” I accept this. I think I’ll disengage now, because I am uncomfortable with this conversation. —Michael Z. 21:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive), do not change existing content. And, well, you know, WP:ADMINACCT.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter is technically right per WP:OTHERNAMES. There's nothing wrong in using "Breslau", "Pressburg", "Danzig", "Pola" and "Kattowitz" as proper names in historical contexts to refer to "Wrocław", "Bratislava", "Gdańsk", "Pula" and "Katowice", respectively, but it's a huge sin to use "Kiev", which is even singled out as a distinct name in the article's lead for "Kyiv". Very absurd.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kiev/Київ is used eight times in the article.
  • Three times it is used in a historical context: Voivode of Kyiv (1791), In 1866, the city was linked by rail with Kyiv and Kharkiv, Before being occupied by Romanian troops in 1941, ... The city was land mined in the same way as Kyiv.
  • The other five times it is used in a present day context.
(There is also a reference to Kyivsky Raion, but that is a reference to part of Odessa, not Kiev/Київ.)
Per WP:COMMONNAME the article should use a transliteration of Київ in the five times that it is used in a present day context. Everyone agrees that we have to abide by WP:COMMONNAME.
The question Ymblanter is raising is what should be use in the context of 1791, 1866 and 1941. If the article were about Odessa in the 18th/19th/20th Century, the RFC that Ymblanter cites would justify us ignoring the decision to move the article on Kiev to a transliteration of Київ. But it is not. It covers both the past and the present. Changing the spelling of Kiev/Київ in the article is confusing for readers. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between "Kyiv" and "Kiev" is much less obvious than, for instance, the difference between "Breslau" and "Wrocław" or "Danzig" and "Gdańsk", so it's very unlikely that the simultaneous use of both "Kyiv" and "Kiev" would confuse readers given that "Kiev" as a name is singled out in that article's lead (it's also improbable to believe that English readers would fail to recognise the meaning of the name "Kiev"). The example about "Voivode of Kyiv (1791)" just adds to the absurdity. We have "Kiev Voivodeship" (see also this list and note that Antoni Protazy Potocki who's referred to as "Voivode of Kyiv (1791)" is included), not "Kyiv Voivodeship" (this isn't even mentioned as an alternative name), so it's very natural to use "Kiev" in this context.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case, the correct decision is to use "Kiev" in the three historical contexts.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with the Kyiv-side here. It makes sense to distinguish between articles but not within them. For a parallel -- everyone understands what BCE/CE and AD/BC mean, so there's no risk of confusion, but it would be ridiculous to switch to BCE/CE for a non-Christian section within an AD/BC article. I think the original editors are too involved to compromise rationally (and @Ymblanter is not doing his status proud) so other editors will hopefully revive and contribute to real discussion. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I likewise agree with Michael Z. and GordonGlottal that the form throughout the article should be "Kyiv", as it seems counterintuitive to switch between "Kyiv" and "Kiev" within the same article. Since, according to the earlier postings in this discussion, the Ukrainian capital's name is mentioned eight times within the Odessa article and only three of those mentions refer to eras when the name was transliterated into English as "Kiev", therefore the majority use, which is also present-day use, should prevail. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus

After a month, by my count, one participant wants to use Kiev spelling throughout the article (user:Toddy1), two Kyiv (user:GordonGlottal and I), and two mixed spellings (user:Ymblanter and user:Kiril Simeonovski). Since there’s no consensus, we should fall back to the guidelines and consensus elsewhere, but YMblanter and I disagree on what the consensus is. So I will ask for more feedback at the WikiProjects listed on this page. —Michael Z. 00:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is very cleat consensus expressed in the prevuos RfC which you pretend not to notice, I cited the relevant part above verbatim.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mzajac, you should read the discussion more carefully. Discussions are not a vote. Good editors are open to changing their mind and to compromise. My initial position was that we should use one spelling throughout the article and it should either be Kiev or Київ (and I preferred Kiev). Kiril Simeonovski's post of 10:16, 9 March 2022 persuaded me that it's very unlikely that the simultaneous use of both "Kyiv" and "Kiev" would confuse readers. So I accepted that the correct decision is to use "Kiev" in the three historical contexts (post of 9 March 2022).-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care what's going to be the result of this discussion. My comment was mostly on the absurdity to avoid the use of "Kiev" in historical contexts when we use other names for other cities, especially in the case of the "Voivode of Kyiv (1791)" when we have the article Kiev Voivodeship. In my opinion, the best strategy to support the universal use of "Kyiv" would be to request changes from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" in all article names where it appears and, if it succeeds, to come back with concrete arguments other than trying to impose a general rule where it's impossible (it'd have been possible had "Kiev" in all articles containing it in their name been replaced with "Kyiv").--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022

as has become standard on wikipedia, the history of odessa seems to come directly out of the back of a koran. there was in fact no greek city on the site of odessa, and the article then entirely ignores the indigenous slavic groups that occupied the area for thousands of years. it is very weird to see a history of odessa not mention any sort of slavic habitation of the region until catherine the great, given they have live in the area for thousands of years. but, the reason for this is that the fundamentally racist system of islamic colonialism considers slavs to be inferior peoples that were simply moved off of the land. islamic colonialist narratives are the kinds of racist histories that need to be completely eradicated from scholarship, but the large amount of money held by the region is currently giving it far more influence than it deserves. the entire history section should be rewritten to prioritize the fact that the region has been inhabited by indigenous slavs for thousands of years; the brief period of islamic colonialism in the region should be minimized. 107.190.102.49 (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: It isn't clear what exactly you'd like changed which is a requirement for edit requests; simply requesting other editors completely rewrite the section to adhere to a requested point of view is inappropriate. You'll also need reliable sources and very likely a consensus of some kind. —Sirdog (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Slavs" as a nationality have not been around for "thousands of years," so that's one nail in the coffin of your argument. And the Greek colony at that site is a well-established fact. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing population number

The stats for the population is from 2021. Due to the invasion, it has changed a lot. Due to this, I recommend that the population number not be written 2402:E280:3D6B:5DB:8857:964F:89F7:8493 (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is still information which is referenced to reliable sources. It clearly says that this is a 2021 estimate and in this sense not misleading. Removal of sourced info is vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does not make any sense removing the information. If we knew what the changes were, then we would still want to know the 2021 population for comparison.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. The population statistic is the normal permanent population. We are WP:NOTNEWS and it needn’t be updated daily during an emergency. —Michael Z. 22:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022

The correct spelling for this Ukrainian City is "Odesa" not Odessa which is old Soviet era spelling. Kandyflip (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 06:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2022

Under "Notable Odessans" I suggest including Nathan Bader, the father of American Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

SOURCE: Under her page at Wikipedia, it says:

Joan Ruth Bader was born on March 15, 1933, at Beth Moses Hospital in Brooklyn, New York City, the second daughter of Celia (née Amster) and Nathan Bader, who lived in the Flatbush neighborhood. Her father was a Jewish emigrant from Odessa, Ukraine, at that time part of the Russian Empire ...

Thus, an addition might look like this (I've never done this before):

Nathan Bader, father of the notable U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was a Jewish immigrant to the U.S. from Odessa, at that time part of the Russian Empire. 97.126.118.202 (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: See WP:WTAF, we don't have an article on Nathan Bader Cannolis (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Place names: established convention

The discussion about the name of the city overlooks long-established custom. There is no necessity for the English-language name of a city to follow a "standard" transliteration of the name in the local language. For example, the capital of the Russian Federation in English is "Moscow", not "Moskva". The capital of Austria in English is "Vienna" not "Wien". The capital of Portugal in English is "Lisbon", not "Lisboa". The capital of Belgium in English is neither "Brussel" nor "Bruxelles", but "Brussels". ... and so on.

This is true in most European languages, not just English. For example, the French Wikipedia article about London correctly refers to the city as "Londres" not London. There have been exceptions, but in general Wikipedia policy follows historical common usage. Sayitclearly (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you ignore the above topics started by drive-by users who do not care about our policies, only of their political agenda, the discussions at every RM is whether Odessa or Odesa is the WP:COMMONNAME. So far the consensus was that this is Odessa, but it still might change. Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cities get renamed all the time, including the romanisation method.
Sometimes, common English lang usage (which is what English wikipedia, e.g, this site, uses by policy) will switch over, sometimes it won't.
Odessa seems like it's rapidly transitioning to Odesa now -- even since the last move request, a few of the English dictionaries that were previously using 'odessa' as primary and 'odesa' as secondary, now use 'odesa' as primary, and 'odessa' as secondary.
This also matches what I've noticed in terms of US/UK media spelling it Odesa a majority of the time now. Even a few months ago, it was more varied. I'm guessing because of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, media have updated their styleguides since they're reporting Ukraine much more often. This is not universal though - I've noticed the NYTimes using 'odesa', but the Washington Post (which is my home town newspaper) still uses 'odessa'. Cononsense (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Former name of Odessa: Khadjibey

The city of Odessa was founded as Khadjibey and retained the name until the Christianization of the area by Catherine the Great in the 18th century. Surely the former name needs to take place with the modern name in the first or second paragraph. 176.55.110.166 (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already is in the second paragraph. —Michael Z. 17:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Name section address the present name, it is not a substitute for the History section nor is it a History of Names section. From the proper History section we find the succession of names with explanation: (a) it may been the Port of Histria, (b) 14c. Italian maps give the fortress Ginestra, (c) 14th century, the Tatar settlement Kachibei (depopulated by the 15 century), (d) 15th century fortress Khadjibey , and presently as (e) Odessa (spelling in Ukrainian one "s"). We need not get into all the name evolution here, it is properly situated and explicated in the the History section. Tachypaidia (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2022

Please ...

Odessa should be Odesa. Spell it the Ukrainian way. 24.191.197.144 (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2022

Change Odessa to Odesa

The name of the city is Odesa. You can see it in every single official document and web of every single organisation. Why does english wikipedia supports russian imperial agenda for god's sake? LOOK, HERE IS ONE S https://odesa.aero/ Odesa is Ukraine (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  10:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa (Russian: Оде́сса [ɐˈdʲesə])

This was removed in March. I have reinstated it in the lede. I think the other native languages of Odessa should also be included in the article.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 09:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEADLANG says only a single name should be in the lede. In the articles on Ukrainian localities whose polulation predominantly (or widely) speaks Russian as a native language the current practice is to include both Ukrainian and Russian names. In this respect, the removal of the Russian name was against widely established consensus, and your restoration was according to the consensus. Hpwever, I am not aware of any consensus which would allow us to mention more than two names in the lede in violation of MOS:LEADLANG.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As this article has a #Name section, we’d best follow the guidelines by moving all but one foreign-language names down there. As the city is in Ukraine, Ukrainian is official, Ukrainian-derived Latin spelling is official, and many English-language authors write about using current Ukrainian-derived spelling for place names in Ukraine, it would follow that the Ukrainian remains in the lead. —Michael Z. 13:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Odessa is predominantly Russian-speaking, the existing practice is to keep in the lede the name in the language spoken in the city. Do not worry, in twenty years no Russian speakers will be left, and the Russian name could be removed. Ymblanter (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this practice documented? I don’t see it at WP:UAPLACE or WP:UKR. I see it is not applied consistently. What is the gauge for “the language spoken” in a city?.
User:Ymblanter, resist the urge to take a crack at me every time we’re in the same discussion. It’s feeling like WP:HARRASSMENT. —Michael Z. 15:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
UAPLACE is specifically about the name of the articles. I do not think anybody disputes the naming (well, may be specifically for Odessa, but this is a separate issue, the vast majority of names are not disputed). As such, it is not surprising that UAPLACE does not say what should be in the lede. The practice is very old, may be Toddy1 might know whether it is documented anywhere. Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Sequence* of Ukranian and Russian spelling (and pronunciation)

This is a Ukrainian city. Shouldn't then the Ukranian spelling be *before* the Russian?
77.190.16.34 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on common use in the English language. Odessa is the common English spelling. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, maybe not.
 —Michael Z. 18:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Odessa is the English spelling, Одесса is the Russian one, and Одеса is the Ukrainian spelling. The most common name of the city in English is Odessa, and this is why the name of the article is Odessa not Odesa, however, this is not the question which is being asked. What is being asked is, out of Russian and Ukrainian, which one should go first. I do not think we have policies regulating this; Ukrainian is indeed the state language, and Russian is the language still predominantly spoken by the population. I do not have a strong opinion on this order, it can go either way. I am pretty sure in almost all articles on Ukrainian localities where two names, Russian and Ukrainian, are used in the lede, the Ukrainian one goes first.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it usually be that the article title name would go first? Since that is presumably the most common spelling in English. If there are two pronunciations for the same spelling I would say yes to a change of order. It would be more like Odessa (Ukrainian: Оде́са [oˈdɛsɐ], Russian: Оде́сса [ɐˈdʲesə]), also spelled Odesa.... But otherwise the title spelling should really go first. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But Odessa is the English (or German, or French, or whatever) spelling, not a Russian one, despite all attempts of Ukrainian nationalists to claim the opposite. Russian is not written in Latin. It indeed likely originates from the Russian spelling, but I do not think this is a direct connection to which one comes first. Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop citing the boogyman of “Ukrainian nationalists” in every discussion about naming. Why don't you mention the Russian nationalists’ opinion for balance? What do the English nationalists say about the English name of this Ukrainian city?
None of this is sourced or even accurate. It’s only emotional.
Of course, Russian is written, specifically transcribed, in the Latin alphabet. Odessa is precisely a Latin transcription of Russian. Writers who are not retentively pedantic would refer to it as “the Russian name” of the city. Oh, look: Dictionary.com (Random House) does just that: “Odessa. The Russian name of Odesa.”[14] —Michael Z. 20:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop commenting ad hominem on every my comment, this is feeling like harassment. Ymblanter (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, sir. You are broadly making negative statements associated with an identifiable group. You are contributing to a hostile atmosphere, and you’ve been doing it for months or years. It is not ad hominem to ask you to stop it.
As you are quoting my previous comment, you separately continue to make similar cracks about me,[15] in reference to the slur you previously labelled me with. It is not ad hominem to ask you to stop it, to take it back, to admit you were wrong, and to apologize. —Michael Z. 20:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter, even with your bad faith accusations that I was being disruptive, it seems very clear that the consensus has settled on Odesa as the English spelling. Advocating for an article name change based on published sources and clear precedent (Kyiv) is not disruptive behavior and you are clearly biased against Ukrainian transliterations. It looks like it didn't need to take 20 years for the change and I was mistaken that it might never be changed in English sources after the pushback from Russian speakers like yourself who seem to think that former Soviet or Russian territories must use Russian transliterations, even after the Ukrainian transliterations were requested by the Ukrainian government and supported by the majority of Ukrainians. I didn't see any of your comments in the second requested move. It seems like you recognized you were wrong. Please don't accuse other editors of disruptive behavior or ad hominem attacks just because you don't agree with their actions or with the fact that Ukrainian transliterations are the appropriate names in English for Ukrainian topics. If I had waited a month or two to request the move, the article would have been moved without objections, and most likely if you had not spammed every reply opposing the move, it probably would have been moved. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the English pronunciation given? Websters has it as (ō-ˈde-sə). It seems if we are giving the Russian and Ukrainian values shouldn't we give the English version in this English wikipedia? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we certainly should. Ymblanter (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Kyiv if you want a good example of why English pronunciations can make the first sentence a nightmare of unreadability. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree. We don't really need pronunciations in the lead. What I'm saying is this is an English encyclopedia... if we have any pronunciation in the lead it should be the way it is pronounced in English, not Ukrainian or Russian. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete

No informations about the war. Blocked port, shootings.Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/05/18/how-to-unblock-ukraines-ports-to-relieve-world-hunger Xx236 (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-missiles-kill-18-in-residential-area-in-odessa-region-ukraine-says-11656665500 Xx236 (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2022/04/22/commentary/world-commentary/putin-wants-odessa/ Xx236 (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust

The text does not inform about deportation of the Jews to Transnistria. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/we-allow-you-to-die-what-happened-to-the-jews-odessa Something is wrong. Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'25,000 Odessans were murdered' - weren't the vicitms Jewish? Xx236 (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odesa is a Ukrainian city!!!

Odesa is Ukrainian city, so pls delete russian transliteration from the city’s description, it is very important in days of war in Ukraine started by russians with the aim to destroy Ukraine and Ukrainians. 2A02:8109:2740:1FEC:1956:9471:7618:3E0E (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 2A02:8109:2740:1FEC:1956:9471:7618:3E0E, please note English spelling, this is Wikipedia.en. --Serols (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English language Wikipedia, and we use the forms of words and names normally used in English, no matter how they may appear in other languages. Thus, for example, we use "Italy", not "Italia", "Spain", not "Espagna", "Moscow", not "Moskva", and "Odessa", not "Odesa". JBW (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not true that Odesa is not English: both spellings are used. If you do a news search, you’ll find that on some days Ukrainian-derived Odesa is used by more sources than Russian-derived Odessa. There is no longer a single WP:COMMONNAME. Some style guides and dictionaries have made Odesa their primary spelling. The situation is currently similar to when we chose to move Kiev to Kyiv. —Michael Z. 16:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian people who speak Russian as their first language are not Russian. They are Ukrainian. The big pro-Russian mobs in Donetsk in 2014 were mostly people bussed in from Russia who did not even bother to reset the times on their watches from Russian time to Ukrainian time. They beat up and murdered Ukrainians who stood up to them (and yes, the Ukrainians they murdered spoke and thought in Russian, but were Ukrainian not Russian). Most Ukrainian people who live Odessa grew up speaking Russian. It is not appropriate to delete the native language name.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just where is it being deleted? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not suggesting it be deleted. I’m responding to misinformation in another comment above. —Michael Z. 22:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just wait little bit. I am not sure if kyiv (phew!) became Kiev, but very positive that odesa (phew!!!) became Odessa. As it was hundreds of years. Just wait. 203.219.83.10 (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Odessa

"Culture of Odessa" does not explain certain subjects, eg. "Odessa-Mama". The links misinform.Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 July 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed. Support arguments citing WP:MODERNPLACENAME and (implicitly) WP:COMMONNAME were persuasive, as was evidence that--once Odessa, TX was accounted for and filtered out--the single-s spelling predominated in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 21:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Several months ago, a similar requested move reached no consensus - an unusual result, as a number of other move requests to change articles to standard Ukrainian orthography (such as Kyiv) were accepted. The opposition arguments given generally summed up to, "Odesa is still spelled Odessa in common English usage" - giving links to dictionaries and news sources. I have since gone back and checked up the status of the linked dictionaries as they stand today. Lexico still says 'Odessa', but Collins now says 'another spelling of Odesa', which they list as the primary. Merriam-Webster, for Odessa,says that Odessa is a city in Texas, and as a second definition, says, "or Ukrainian Odesa city".

The same result happens when we search news sources that were previously claimed to support a "Odessa" spelling. To avoid bias that would be induced by searching for one or the other, I hinted at the city by searching articles that mentioned a Ukrainian port city but not Mariupol, Kherson or Mykolaiv. Of the news sources cited previously Reuters says Odesa, CNN says Odesa, CBC says Odesa, and The New York Times says Odesa (The Guardian and the BBC, the other two mentioned, had no hits for the above search in the past month). Indeed, the Christian Science Monitor specifically notes - in their article about why they're changing their spelling from "Odessa" to "Odesa" - that beyond general respect from people and the offended reactions they were getting from locals at "Dateline Odessa", standards across the industry have shifted to the Odesa spelling - including the Associated Press, which sets the standard for the industry in the US.

To be explicit, there has been a change since the last vote in what is acceptable and standard as the English spelling for Odesa.

I'll reiterate that these are the specific sources used by the opposition, which are now by and large clearly supporting the spelling of "Odesa". For example, when I use a dictionary I usually use Dictionary.com, which lists Odessa as "The Russian name of Odesa", and links to the primary article, Odesa. Given that by and large the opposition's own sources now support the rename, I find it hard to argue that the current naming should stand - hence, I'm reopening the naming discussion, on the grounds that the basis for the previous decision has changed (while interest in renaming continues). -- Rei (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

  • Oppose - In English Odessa is still the most common, and we don't simply look at the time period since the Russian invasion. We don't even know who'll lay claim to Odessa a year from now. We should look at the last 10 years not the last 10 weeks. I see Odessa at NY Times, NY Post, Washington Post, Art News, and others. Six months ago it was overwhelming Odessa and books are still the same. No question that the recent two months has seen a seismic shift towards Odesa from the press. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - See the rename request justification above. Even the opposition to the rename's own sources in the past vote now all (but one) support the spelling "Odesa". You can't say "Odessa is still the main spelling" when almost nobody is spelling it that way anymore. For obvious reasons, there has been a conscious move by dictionaries and news sources to not use a spelling of a location that's offensive to its residents. Rather odd that some people on Wikipedia insist on doing what dictionaries and the news media has largely decided NOT to do. -- Rei (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As per nom, seems pretty straightforward that we should use the country's own spelling - especially as more continue to update to the Ukranian spelling. | MK17b | (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per request justifications above; Odesa has become the dominate spelling. The UN is using this spelling. Along with the appropriate redirects, a short footnote or parenthetical statement should be created in the lede for articles which have the word Odesa in the title, indicating the alternative historical spellings, just enough information that folks understand the difference in spellings they might see. eg: (historically also spelled Odessa).  // Timothy :: talk  01:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Rei, Mk17b and TimothyBlue. Wikipedia follows WP:RELIABLE SOURCES and, in the same manner that reliable sources stopped using "Kiev" and started using "Kyiv", such sources have stopped using "Odessa" and started using "Odesa", which has now become the English spelling of this Ukrainian city's name. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The start of the russian invasion changed everything about how cities in Ukraine are being spelled in English. Before the war, Ukrainian cities were mentioned in English language media only rarely and then Kyiv was still "Kiev" about half the time and Odesa was always "Odessa". Since 24 February, however, the spellings have changed virtually overnight, with "Kyiv" and "Odesa" being overwhelmingly more common. Put enough foreign journalists on the ground and they'll change spelling usage by force if need be. This goes right along with pronouncing "Kharkiv" with an [h] at the front instead of the older [k]. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly this headline in the Washington Post on 1 July uses Kyiv but Odessa. There's not a blanket change to Ukrainian spellings. It's obviously very much case-by-case. DeCausa (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, and per reasons listed by other uses above. Reliable sources definitely seem to have switched over to the official Ukrainian spelling. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per opposition's own sources now support the rename, OR opposition has to find another sources - and another justification (or excuse). Chrz (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Premature. I'm still seeing plenty of recent usage of Odessa in RS: WaPo 1 July, iNews 3 July, The Guardian 1 July, WSJ, 1 July etc. No reason to rush. It's been out of news in the last while - I'm sure they'll be a reportable incident that will put it back in the news in the near future and that will enable a more complete check to see if WP:NAMECHANGE has really taken place. DeCausa (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment btw The Gaurdiian link above uses Odesa not Odessa. The name change has taken place. Washington Post, NYTimes, LA Times, Guardian, and most other major newspapers have started using the Odesa spelling.  // Timothy :: talk  09:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you're right about the Guardian. But to state "The name change has taken place" just isn't true as an absolute statement - see for example the sources I cite. I don't think it's yet clear where the balance lies - time will tell. Washington Post is interesting in that there are 2 articles on 1 July with one using Odesa and the other using Odessa, and they are timestamped 35 minutes apart. DeCausa (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment It took us nearly a decade to change "Kiev" to "Kyiv". There is no need to wait and quibble over minutiae before making this change. "Kyiv" broke tough sod, there's no reason that "Odesa" can't be quickly planted. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Isn't that a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia? We don't have any objective to break "any tough sod". That's not WP's role. "Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow". It took that amount of time because it took the English-speaking world that time. There's no principle to be followed just because Kiev became Kyiv - the two are independent of each other as far as WP is concerned, although there may well be a connection in the broader English-speaking world (i.e. the invasion). We're fundamentally and intentionally lagging copy-cats. DeCausa (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            Kyiv broke tough sod on wikipedia editors' heads, which were unable to comprehend that anyone/any language can "force" something into their precious mother tongue English. It is possible and now we know little better when it is essentially won (if AP on board, nearly there ... or something like that). Chrz (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • The "tough sod" wasn't "world opinion", it was "Wikipedia editors' reluctance to change without overwhelming evidence" (including my own because I was on the "Kiev" side until the very end). That is clearly tougher sod to break than the sod of world opinion. Anyone who has been an editor on Wikipedia longer than two weeks knows that Wikipedia can never be accused of shaping world opinion. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I find no compelling argument to the contrary. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:MODERNPLACENAME and Tavio above—blindlynx 09:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is nothing wrong with either, but this move will be used to suppress the spelling Odessa and I therefore oppose it as not improving the encyclopedia as a whole. Srnec (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Suppress the spelling Odessa"? Unlike "Kiev", there are international uses of "Odessa" independent of the city in Ukraine, but even after Wikipedia switched to "Kyiv", there are still sources that use "Kiev" even in the context of the current russian invasion. It's an argument that has no supporting evidence. People do not use Wikipedia as a go-to source for spelling anything. But a deeper question that swirls around your answer is, "So what?" What is lost if the world recognizes the official spelling of "Odesa" as being superior to the former spelling of "Odessa"? Do you still write "Konigsberg" instead of "Kaliningrad"? Or "New Amsterdam" instead of "New York"? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what that means exactly, but indeed, it would lead to more use of the changed spelling. But it’s a matter of consensus, reflected in our timeworn guidelines, that we generally use the main-article-title spelling in the text of articles, and that we determine the main article title spelling by the principles outlined in WP:title. This reflects consensus, meaning most of us believe this improves the encyclopedia. —Michael Z. 00:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, there has been a clear shift in English usage.--Staberinde (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, while there has been some increase in Odesa, Odessa far outstrips Odesa, see google ngram where Odessa is still twenty times more popular. Baxbox (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s misleading because 1) a huge proportion of that refers to Odessa, Texas, as well as other things listed in Odessa (disambiguation); and 2) It stops at 2019, and per the nom and various comments this is a recent change. —Michael Z. 22:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Odessa, Texas, really? Your Odessa (disambiguation) argument only makes your argument weaker as nearly everything in the disambiguation page was named after Odessa, Ukraine, this also includes the given name. Odessa is the established spelling form in English. Baxbox (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your dismissal of Odessa, Texas and all of the other three dozen placenames and personal names shows that you don't understand the issue at all. Once another place or person has been named after something, its name is no longer tied to the original name. Even though there is strong incentive for us to write Odesa, Ukraine, there have been no attempts in Odessa, Texas to rename it to match the Ukrainian name. None. So if your ngram includes all of the other place and personal names which it, of course, does since you did not restrict the search, then your ngram is completely useless in this discussion and your argument based on it is misleading. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So if Bombay Sapphire Gin or crab Rangoon get popular and a lot of sources write about them, then we should rename articles about the cities Mumbai and Yangon again? It doesn’t work that way. —Michael Z. 00:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support  This situation parallels the recent spelling change of Kyiv, and the decision to rename that article should be consulted. It found that there were two WP:COMMONNAMEs, and the arguments to use Kyiv were stronger, even though it may have not been the most common. In the case of Odesa, the proposed spelling is likely now the most common in current sources, including English-language news and English-language books. —Michael Z. 22:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Some evidence. The results have changed since I presented the same sources in the recent requested move above.
    Google News Search
    Google Advanced Book Search (English-language sources) is really showing off its “total results” bug in these searches. It looks like Google’s estimates are nonsense, but counting actual results returned does not clearly favour Odessa, and may indicate a dramatic opposite trend (viz. WP:GOOG).
    Looking at sources suggested by WP:Widely accepted name which are up-to-date and accessible:
    The English-language dictionaries use context labels, indicating that in a Ukrainian subject context, Odesa is the most commonly used spelling. An article on a city in Ukraine is an example of such a context.
    • Associated Press APStylebook: Russia-Ukraine War Topical Guide: “Odesa / (not Odessa) Ukrainian port city on the Black Sea.”
    • The Guardian and Observer Style Guide: O: “Odesa / not Odessa for the port city in Ukraine”
    • ABC (Australia) Style Guide: “Use Ukrainian romanisations for place names from that country: Kyiv, Lviv, Odesa, etc.”
    • Grammarly spelling reference uses Odesa.
    • The United States Board on Geographic Names uses Odesa.[18]: 8  BGN determines the usage of geographic names for the US government (and runs the Geo Names server mentioned above).
    • International Air Transport Association uses Odesa.[19] IATA determines naming of airports and locations in international aviation.
    Using the spelling Odesa also fulfils the WP:CRITERIA of precision (distinguishing from other subjects listed in Odessa (disambiguation)), and of consistency since nearly all Ukrainian place names are spelled according to the Ukrainian standard system of Romanization, as recommended by WP:UKR (and consistent with Nova Odesa).
    WP:MODERNPLACENAME tells us to use a current name. —Michael Z. 22:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:UE. —  AjaxSmack  03:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn’t apply because this is not a “choice between anglicized and local spelling.” Both spellings are transliterations from foreign languages. Odesa appeared in English by 1685.[20] —Michael Z. 06:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course that’s before the foundation of the modern city, because it refers to old Greek Odessos on the same Black Sea coast, as does the name of the city. But the spelling Odesa was also used specifically for the Russian colony later: 1819, 1819, 1850. —Michael Z. 16:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is too soon to say whether the one-s spelling will surplant the traditional two-s spelling I looked at three British news organisations. The Economist and The Financial Times have had fairly good coverage of Ukraine for at many years; the state-run BBC also attempts world-wide coverage. The BBC and the The Financial Times both had far more stories using Odessa than Odesa. The Economist only used Odessa (though its search engine recognised Odesa for some stories).
-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Proper analysis would mean filter it by date. Older results won't tell you what is hip now, in recent years. Chrz (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears BBC stopped using the Russian-derived spelling after May 5, 2022, the Economist after May 7, and FT after March 24. For the last two you can confirm this by sorting the results by date. —Michael Z. 12:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has?? Five days ago there was this, so it depends on who writes the story. Same with articles by the Washington Post, CBS News, or CNN news... so it seems to depend on who writes the story or what book you pick up. No question the trend the last few weeks has bent to Odesa, but Wikipedia usually looks at the last six months of data not six days of data. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mzajac I have not even found one story on The Economist's site that uses the Odesa spelling. They all seem to use Odessa - including the ones after 7 May 2022, for example: 27 May 2022, 13 June 2022, 27 June 2022.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the search links above, with “sort by date” selected. Economist has stories with both spellings.[21][22] I see that looking deeper, the sample is too small and the search doesn’t return all articles or something. —Michael Z. 00:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The articles on The Economist site returned by a search for "Odesa" do not use "Odesa" in the text; they use "Odessa".-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the extreme recentness of the alleged changes of usage (some of which never happened), it is too soon to say whether usage has changed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the only one on BBC, from BBC’s local Bristol outlet? You know, when outlets change their style guide, they don’t necessarily stick to it 100.00%, for various reasons. Anyway, it’s AP, the Guardian, and ABC Australia that have published verifiable style guides changing to Odesa. —Michael Z. 00:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Of course Odesa should be called Odesa, if that is the Ukrainian word. Odesa belongs to Ukraine, and should be spelled according to the language of the country it is in. Imagine if London in the UK had to be called Londres instead of London, just because a neighbour country called it that. Absurd thought, right? Yet we expect Ukraine to put up with that exact absurdity. Give Ukraine the respect it deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.114.17 (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the discussion concerning the change of "Kiev" to "Kyiv". Wikipedia isn't in the business of following the usage of names in other countries, it is solely in the business of reflecting usage among the majority of reliable sources in the English language. Once the majority of reliable sources in English had begun using "Kyiv", then Wikipedia switched. That is the only issue to be decided here. What do English language sources use? This has nothing whatsoever to do with what the official spelling in Ukraine is or is not. Changing "Kiev" to "Kyiv" took about a decade to resolve because English language sources were only slowly switching their usage. The change from "Odessa" to "Odesa" is happening much faster because russia's invasion has accelerated the switch exponentially faster in English language reliable sources than the switch from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" took. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine if London in the UK had to be called Londres instead of London, just because a neighbour country called it that. About that... --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:D5C9:8659:B360:48D6 (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A more appropriate analogy would be Japan wanting to be known as the Dai Nippon Teikoku. The reason for the "Dai" [great] was that it meant that the name for Japan would appear earlier in an alphabetical list of nations. Should Japan have had the right to demand that English-speakers abandon the English-language name for Japan, and use a transliteration of a Japanese-language name? Because this is analogous to what Ukrainian-diaspora editors have been pushing for with great success over the past 20 years: that the English-language should abandon English-language names for places in Ukraine and adopt transliteration from Ukrainian names instead.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is mainly about our guidelines and what’s used in reliable sources. I do believe there is a place for moral questions in correctly implementing Wikipedia’s goals, such as the important one about being aware of our own colonial viewpoints that’s discussed in WP:BIAS.
But user:Toddy1 trying to demonize “Ukrainian-diaspora editors” is an ad hominem argument aimed at an indeterminate group of boogeymen, and a vaguely racist example of trying to WP:right great wrongs. Doesn’t belong here. Shame.
Regarding supposed “English-language names,” the fact is that both Odessa and Odesa spellings are derived from, associated with,[23] and correspond to transliterations from[A][B] foreign languages. Odesa has been attested in English for at least two centuries (wikt:Citations:Odessa). —Michael Z. 16:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Odessa Railways

I have started a RM at Talk:Odessa Railways#Requested move 28 July 2022. I'm neutral as to the outcome but comments and !votes are welcome. There may be other pages to treat similarly. Certes (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in the news

 —Michael Z. 13:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign languages in the lead

I moved the second foreign-script name and pronunciation from the lead into the body with the edit summary “moving second foreign language to the #Name section per WP:LEADLANG.” The MOS guideline says

If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses. . . . Do not include foreign equivalents in the text of the lead sentence for alternative names . . . , as this clutters the lead sentence and impairs readability.

@Fyunck(click) reverted my edit with “Perhaps this should be discussed. Usually the local language is placed in parenths but the most common local language in Odesa is Russian.”

So, what alternative are you proposing? That Odesa, Ukraine, is closely associated with the Russian language and not the Ukrainian? (Historically, Yiddish was important too.) Or that we move all foreign names down? —Michael Z. 23:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odesa and Odessa are now both English words. It doesn't really matter where they came from. All I'm saying is that if the main language of Odesa is Russian then maybe that is a better fit if we only use one term. Editors may want a say before it gets changed. If I was doing it... because of the complexities involved I would probably do it in the following way:
Odesa is the main name in English now and it has different spellings in Ukrainian and Russian, Russian being the predominant language of the area. I would not get rid of Ukrainian in the lead because that is the country it's located in. So I would say an exception is warranted. I would keep Ukrainian first as a compromise, but since Russian is the language of choice I would think it must be retained. Odessa is now just an alternative way of spelling the city in English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If both are retained then the way it was is better, because it clearly associates the Ukrainian-derived spelling with the Ukrainian and the Russian-derived with the Russian without any extra verbiage, and without requiring the addition of redundant romanizations.
If an exception is warranted wherever another language is the “language of choice,” then let’s have a broader conversation about it, because here is a clear consensus in the guidelines, but lots of exceptions and opinions about hem in articles about Ukrainian places. (I think I’ve seen five or more foreign languages in an article lead in the past.) —Michael Z. 03:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that I've seen multiple (four or five) languages in the lead and it really looks messy. I would usually rather see one and the rest discussed lower down in an Etymology section. But this is a more unusual case. I do disagree on why we have the two items... it's because of what Odesa is based on. Odessa was the main English spelling. Now Odesa has overtaken it. We usually have a foreign spelling because of the location and usage of the people who live there, not because of how the name was derived. If it was derived from Latin we wouldn't put in the Italian pronunciation. This item is just complex because the people speak Russian and the city lies in Ukraine (hopefully for a long long time). We want to let readers know how to pronounce the name in it's native language and we can't settle on just one way. I think my suggestion accomplishes this but if it stays the way it is I have no issues. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same guideline also says:
Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology.
 —Michael Z. 14:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The situation here is identical to that at Kyiv, so the russian form should be removed and the Ukrainian form be the only foreign language used in this lead. Trying to use "the local language" is a fools errand in Ukraine because ever since 2014 Ukrainian is becoming more and more common even in so-called "russian" areas. Even in Kharkiv, the most "russian" of Ukrainian cities (excepting the Donbass), reporters have been commenting on how seldom russian is actually being heard in public. So unless there is a peacetime determination after the war is over, Ukrainian should be used for all these Ukrainian cities in the lead where we have changed the name and russian forms should be relegated to a point later in the article. There was a long discussion at Kyiv and this was the conclusion. As at Kyiv, so at Odesa. Thus Odesa (Ukrainian Одеса) or Odessa. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The guideline does not suggest including foreign pronunciation in the lead, either. Its intention is to improve readability by reducing clutter, so except for the single foreign name, all this stuff belongs in a comprehensive “Name” section. If we couldn’t decide on one primary foreign name, then following the guideline would have us remove that from the lead too rather than “balance it out” by increasing clutter—but it’s my impression that we all agree the Ukrainian takes precedence. —Michael Z. 15:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing close to an RS we have when it comes to determining what the language breakdown of a city is is the 2001 census that is woefully out of date. We really should have a discussion about this convention of including russian names in the lead just because the city had a sizable russian speaking pop in 2001—blindlynx

It’s reasonably well attested in RS that Ukrainian language use has increased throughout mainland Ukraine over two decades, the increase accelerated since 2014, and more so in the last five months. Practically all of mainland Ukraine is functionally bilingual or Ukrainophone. I don’t know whether Russian or Ukrainian is currently most commonly used in Odesa (anyone know of a survey?), and of course Odesa has an important Russian-language tradition, but even in 2001, 79% of Odesans said they are competent in Ukrainian, 81% in Russian (per uk:Населення Одеської області#Вільне володіння мовами). —Michael Z. 16:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While not the most reliable source, this article from today's "Daily Beast" is an example of what journalists are reporting throughout Ukraine since the start of russia's war against it: [24]. And we keep "Odessa" as an "other name" for the same reason we keep "Kiev" at Kyiv--because there is still a sizable amount of English literature that uses "Odessa" and "Kiev". It's not for Ukrainian reference, it's for English reference. If we were to count all English language sources for the last 100 years, these two now-obsolete names would far outnumber the current names by many orders of magnitude. So we keep them in the infobox for the benefit of our primary users/readers: English speakers. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the Intercultural Profile of 2017, the principle language of Odesa is Russian. The thing is, no guidelines are etched in stone at wikipedia, and common sense and anomalies abound. This is a city that may really need the flexibility of both pronunciations. It's not three, four, or five... it's only two. Even if it is now 50/50 you wouldn't want to use bias and just show one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That article that you cite makes no sense in the very sentence that you cite: "Nowadays Ukrainians are the largest ethnic group (62%) with Russians the second largest (28%), but Russian is the principal language". If "Ukrainians are the largest ethnic group", then the comment about "principal language" is illogical. But even Russian-speakers in Odesa are speaking Ukrainian now. That's what is happening throughout southern and eastern Ukraine as reported widely in the media. Russian speakers in Ukraine are choosing to switch languages. So your comment about "bias" might have been valid a year ago, but is not valid now. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's one thing to want something later than 2001... it's quite another to insist on something since March 2022. That would run afoul of WP:RECENTISM. And just because they are ethnic Ukrainians doesn't mean they don't use Russian as their language of choice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's review the simplest of all facts about Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia. It has nothing whatsover to do with anything about the local language. It has everything to do with what English readers want to easily learn about the topics we present. Thus, multiplying local languages in the lead is confusing and detracts from what English speakers need. That's why we restrict foreign languages in the lead to one. This article should follow the example of Kyiv's lead, which lists Ukrainian as the source of "Kyiv" and all other foreign names in a "Names" section. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it doesn’t appear that there there is any clear consensus to override the guideline at WP:LEADLANG, I suggest we move the second foreign language out of the lead. Dissenters are welcome to request closure or expand this to an RFC to change it. —Michael Z. 15:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Wikipedia guidelines and usage at Kyiv, where a nearly identical situation was discussed at length, should be followed without a clear consensus to wander away. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree completely. There is no consensus to change very longstanding usage of both items. In fact if one were to stay it might be Russian, since it's used more. That's the whole issue with this... there are two local languages. One of the different issues with Kyiv is it's pronounced about five different ways. There is also no requirement we add foreign language info at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline says “if the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language,” not “the language used more locally.” The very fact that we have moved the article to a Ukrainian-derived spelling attests that Ukrainian is closely associated with this place in Ukraine, and that it is not recentism to recognize this. —Michael Z. 13:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fyunck, you are acting like there is some major difference between the russian word and the Ukrainian word. With Kyiv versus Kiev, there was an important different in the vowels used and a major difference in pronunciation, yet we don't list the russian word in the lead because it is not the basis for the name of the article per Wikipedia guidelines. Yet for Odesa, there isn't even a major difference--just the length of the pronunciation of the "s". For Americans, that is an impossible distinction to even hear because long consonants don't exist in English. You are arguing over the number of angels on the head of a pin, a difference without a distinction. The russian name is not the basis of the name of the article and it's not different from the Ukrainian name in any meaningful or even phonetically noticeable way. Your arguments for moving the russian name out of the lead have no real basis in fact and simply amount to "I don't want to". Wikipedia isn't written for speakers of a local language, it's written for English speakers. And in English, the Ukrainian form is the only one that matters because that underlies the most common spelling now in English--Odesa. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of major differences between the languages. In fact, in English, they are pronounced exactly the same. People haven't changed in that aspect at all. The fact is if you are giving a foreign spelling lesson on Odesa, which is not required at all on Wikipedia, then the local language is extremely important. It favors Russian, and sources tell us it favors Russian. It's not like I would advocate removing Ukrainian syntax either. The subject of this article Odesa/Odessa is very closely associated with both Ukrainian and Russian. You can't just wave a wand and throw that fact out because you want to. This fact and aspect has been in the article for a long long time and when it was titled Odessa of course we had both. For years and years it was done the following way... "Odessa (also known as Odesa; Ukrainian: Оде́са [ɔˈdɛsɐ]; Russian: Оде́сса [ɐˈdʲesə])... It worked just fine and dandy. Not too long but to the point. We have now changed the article to Odesa, but nothing else should change. It's not our place at Wikipedia to exterminate Russian words and phrases because we disagree with their politics and policies. As perplexed as you two seem to be with my stance on this, I am just as perplexed and bewildered with yours. I can't understand why you are so gungho with this expurgation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to exterminate the huge in-WP:consistency in the leads of articles on Ukrainian place names. We happen to be updating this one because the title changed recently.
Just look at the leads in any ten articles in List of cities in Ukraine, and you’ll see nine different styles, most not conforming to WP:LEAD, and very cluttered (much of the guideline talks about avoiding clutter for readability). —Michael Z. 19:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is a good thing. However cookie-cutter articles can also be a bad thing if the circumstances of those articles are different. I don't know the language situation of each of those cities. Perhaps they are quite different than Odesa. I don't see the original "Odessa (also known as Odesa; Ukrainian: Оде́са [ɔˈdɛsɐ]; Russian: Оде́сса [ɐˈdʲesə])" being cluttered in the least. We would just switch it around to conform to our new title of Odesa. However Kyiv is quite messy, Donetsk is messy, even a simple name like Kovel is messy. Places like Sevastopol or Lozova are just fine. Places like Sarych start off fine and then add extra crap in a second set of parenthesis. Places like Donuzlav strangely have no mention of Ukrainian in the lead at all. If we include anything on other languages other than English in the lead, certainly if two are pretty close we would include them both for our readers. I would like to see some semblance of structure in the articles you allude to, but we also need flexibility depending on the situation. No two are exactly alike. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kyiv is not messy at all in terms of the foreign language component--just the Ukrainian. We're not talking about English pronunciations here, just how many foreign language examples are appropriate. Since the article is entitled "Odesa", then the only appropriate foreign language form in the first sentence is the Ukrainian one. We already give a nod to the russian-based spelling with "or Odessa", but since that form is not the article's title then the explanation for it, like the explanation for "Kiev" at Kyiv, should be later in the article. All of these Ukrainian city articles need attention when it comes to the proliferation of foreign names in the lead, but just because they haven't been cleaned up yet isn't an excuse for not cleaning Odesa up just like Kyiv was cleaned up. (Again, we're not talking about the English phonetics at Kyiv, just the single, solitary foreign language reference to Ukrainian there.) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well we simply disagree. Kyiv looks messy to read to me, and we 100% disagree on what is appropriate. And Odessa is also the English based spelling and has been the English spelling till the last month or so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We actually agree that Kyiv looks messy, but the messiness has nothing to do with the single foreign language entry and is due to the god-awful presentation of English pronunciations. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is sad for me is I look out for our readers. When I see Britannica's entry it shows how badly ours looks in comparison. Other encyclopedias and almanacs look similar to Britannica. All that stuff should be in a separate prose section, not garbaging up the lead. My beef in this issue is that if it is in the lead we can't show only one in this particular case as both languages are equally important with this city, and it's why I think a simpler style such as "Odesa (Ukrainian: Оде́са, Russian: Оде́сса) or Odessa, is the third most populous..." works much better. I even wish the country could be shortened to its country code but that doesn't appear to be a parameter for the template. The rest can go in a short etymology section for those readers who care. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with including all languages that are significant for a location is that it opens the floodgates for cities that are truly multilingual to have four, five, or more languages and that is real clutter. L'viv, for example, could legitimately include L'viv, Lvov, Lwów, and Lemberg in the list of language forms that have more than a passing relationship to the city. Wikipedia must draw the line and one official language (in this case Ukrainian) should be sufficient for the first sentence and all others later in the text. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I never said to include all languages. Where did I ever say that? We can't do that as you said. But here we may have a city that speaks perhaps 60% Russian and 40% Ukrainian. I don't think it's correct to have only Russian (or Ukrainian) in this particular case. We would usually include only the main language here but in this case we have two main languages. I just don't understand how you can't see this. I feel anything but zero or two is POV and unfair to our readers. So we could keep all the foreign language stuff out of the lead and put all of it below in detail. Are you from Ukraine or near the area concerned? I don't mean to be rude...I ask because I'm trying to understand where your stance is coming from. I'm USA so I'm far afield from the situation there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point that I'm trying to make is that the English Wikipedia is not for the benefit of the local speakers of whatever language they happen to speak, it is for English speakers. As English speakers our readers don't need a panoply of whatever the locals speak, whether relevant to the title of the article or not, but the language from which the name of the article derives. And your argument about local speakers is no longer valid even though it might have arguably been valid a year ago. russian speakers in Ukraine outside the occupied areas are switching to Ukrainian, whether that is their native language or not. russian is simply not an acceptable language for public use in Ukraine anymore. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be WP:recentism and not used at Wikipedia. And someone keeps throwing WP:LEADLANG in our faces... what you just wrote goes against that. It specifically says the "subject of the article" not the "name of the article." It also says the lead "typically includes the local-language equivalent." We have to be flexible in whatever a guideline says but it does not say we use the language of the article title or country. Per that guideline, if we use anything, we should be using Russian not Ukrainian. I don't agree with that at all, but I also don't believe we excise one of the two main languages. I don't think I can get any clearer on this issue and we are getting absolutely nowhere here. You may have the last say since we are filling this talk page up with essentially the same thing over and over and over with no end in sight. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That extract is from a sentence that actually does say “country.” One completely reasonable and consistent interpretation is to include the Ukrainian name in the lead of articles about subjects that are places in Ukraine. —Michael Z. 22:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fyunck(click)’s idea seems to be that the city should be treated as an exception because a 50%-plus-one majority reported their “native language” as Russian in the latest census, 21 years ago. A couple of problems with this:
  • The census is out of date. To say that newer figures, estimates, or surveys are WP:recentism is a fallacy, as it is well document and supportable that Ukrainian usage has been growing since before that census and, especially, since, so its figures are almost certainly no longer valid.
  • The census doesn’t represent what people necessarily speak, or what their ancestors spoke, or speak the most, or at home, or daily. Many or most Ukrainians are functionally bilingual but the census design didn’t capture that. And, for example, in Kyiv, widely regarded as a mainly Russian-speaking city, only 25.3% reported their native language as Russian.
If we are to apply this consistently, then a number of articles would change. I had a look at the articles about the 25 Ukrainian regional capitals. They have from 1 (11 of them) to 5 (Ternopil) foreign languages in the first sentence. Eight had a native-Russian-language majority in 2001, and six of these have the Russian name in the first sentence. Three with fewer native-Russian-language Ukrainians in 2001, Kherson (45.3%), Lutsk (6.8%), and Zhytomyr (16.3%) have the Russian name in the first sentence.
I hope to revise the leads of these articles and make them appropriately more consistent in terms of alternate names and foreign names. Do you think we’ll find consensus to include Russian in the first sentence for the 50%+1 2001 native-Russian-language population cities: Dnipro, Donetsk, Kharkiv, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Sevastopol, and Zaporizhzhia?
I don’t think we should. I believe the clutter should be reduced greatly and most of this moved out of the first sentence, as recommended by MOS:FIRST and MOS:LEADLANG. But let’s at least consider the broader context while discussing this article. —Michael Z. 23:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have no business summarizing for me, because you are dead wrong in your assessment. I have not based it on any such thing and I have stated so and given links. State your own conclusions, not mine! Wikipedia has always been flexible and common sense trumps many items. I also listed cities in Ukraine that are all over the map and we have to look at each one and not treat them in some blanket fashion by eliminating all things Russian. I see you have all kinds of Ukraine awards on your wiki page so perhaps you can't look at this as objectively as you should right now. That would be understandable but not helpful here. And the WP:recentism statement was based on comments about changes since the war, so it is not fallacy in the least. Goodness. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click), you are WP:casting aspersions and implying a lack of WP:good faith. Please reconsider your comment.
If I misinterpreted, just say so. I never implied we should not be flexible or use common sense, only that we should consider the guidelines including WP:consistency and the WP:MOS. —Michael Z. 03:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably correct in me casting aspersions that you might be from the Ukrainian area... sorry about that. I should have stuck to the topic only. However I was quite unhappy that you summarized this discussion with two incorrect things about what I said, and it has made me lose some faith in your objectivity. I've tried multiple lead sentence changes and suggestions to make the the lead less messy. I'm not sure I see any other changes others have put in writing that we can look at. While I do agree that most of the first sentence could be moved out and into a etymology section, I don't think we agree on what should be moved. While we do need to look at the big picture, each city or area has it's own issues that can change what goes into the lead. You mentioned several cities you would like to conform in your last post, one of which was Sevastopol. I'm interested how you would handle that in conforming. When I look at that lead I would either leave it as is or move everything in parenths into another section. I can't think of anything else that would work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with using any language census material prior to 2014 is that the language situation in Ukraine has changed radically since then. The use of Ukrainian in day-to-day life has skyrocketed in the unoccupied part of eastern and southern Ukraine since that time. This has been reported widely in the media since that time. Blindly relying on grossly out-of-date language censuses is unreliable considering language use in Ukraine post-2014. Using 2001 census data for languages in Ukrainian cities is laughable and grossly deceptive. All Ukrainian cities should be standardized with Ukrainian as the sole foreign language in the lead since that is the national language and there is no reliable information about current language use in any of these cities. Language use in Ukraine has changed radically since 2014. Sticking with the national language, especially when the article titles are being changed to reflect Ukrainian spellings and use in English language media, is the only reasonable and NPOV choice. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s all true, but I don’t think that’s even the main argument. Many, many places in Ukraine see the same language situation, whose precise details we cannot determine, and I don’t think bringing multiple foreign names up to the lead to reflect local usage is necessarily useful.
For example, in Odesa Oblast the majority named Ukrainian as their native language in 2001. That article’s first sentence has four foreign-language names and theee romanizations, and the next sentence has a foreign name too. It ought to be de-cluttered. Should we really override the guideline in seemingly random articles for this one rather obscure and possible no longer valid statistic without any obvious explanation?
Language demographics can vary greatly from village to village and from raion to raion. See for example,E, uk:Населення Одеської області#Мовний склад (“Demographics of Odesa Oblast § Language structure”), where the second table shows Ukrainian language fraction varies from 5% to 96% within the oblast’s districts, and Russian from 2% to 74%. Is the argument to check the two-decades-old census for every oblast, raion, hromada, city, town, and village to determine where to override the guideline? I think that would require a central consensus discussion and lead to a huge waste of time and energy because the resulting pattern of article first-sentence content would be effectively meaningless.
Bear in mind that we are not discussing changing the article title, nor altering the Russian-derived alternate name in bold, nor even removing any foreign-language material at all. Just reducing clutter in the lead for readability, as the consensus guideline recommends in several places. —Michael Z. 14:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree that if possible we don't want to override the guideline. These four and five languages in the lead are unwieldy and un-needed. There is no wikipedia requirement to have any language other than English in the lead. I would think we would need to have a source or two that shows two languages are historically pretty much evenly spoken before we put more than one in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Historically pretty much evenly spoken" is, itself, a minefield for many cities in Ukraine because the interpretation of what counts as "evenly spoken" is meaningless outside of a modern language survey (which hasn't been done in Ukraine for two decades with intervening massive language upheaval due to wars in 2014 and 2022). All other "reliable sources" are virtually anecdotal. "Historically" is also subject to interpretation since Kyiv began life with Proto-East Slavic as the primary language before it differentiated into the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian languages. Should we then list one of the "foreign languages" a reconstruction of Kiev/Kyiv from Proto-East Slavic? Or how about Lviv? In the absence of reliable language surveys, we'll have to list Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, and German. The first sentence of the lead is, of course, all we're talking about and since you, Fyunck, value the removal of clutter, then it's surprising that you are the one arguing for the retention of foreign language clutter. In Ukraine, the only language that should be mentioned in the first sentence should be Ukrainian. And your argument is further undermined because the difference between the Ukrainian form and the Russian form is trivial, both orthographically and phonetically. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely want to remove clutter, but not at the expense of NPOV. Per the sources I'm seeing, Russian is the prevailing language of Odesa. If we were only going to list one, that's what I would likely list. Same with Sevastopol, but the Sevastopol article lists none and that could be the best option here. Otherwise I would list two with this article and my examples have less clutter than what we have now. I've given examples... but you haven't shown us your exact preference. I feel I'm on really solid ground source-wise. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We now have a longstanding style:

Odesa (Ukrainian: Оде́са [oˈdɛsɐ] ⓘ) or Odessa (Russian: Оде́сса [ɐˈdʲesə]).

We could leave it as is since it's really not a huge deal. It's not like we have five different languages in the lead. We could also do:

  1. Odesa (Ukrainian: Оде́са [oˈdɛsɐ]) or Odessa (Russian: Оде́сса [ɐˈdʲesə]).
  2. Odesa (Оде́са, Оде́сса) or Odessa
  3. Odesa (Ukrainian: Оде́са [oˈdɛsɐ], Russian: Оде́сса [ɐˈdʲesə]) or Odessa
  4. Odesa (Ukrainian: Оде́са, Russian: Оде́сса) or Odessa
  5. Odesa or Odessa

All these are less busy than the original yet do not preach one language preference over another. Every city would be a bit different depending on the language situation. Choice 5 is how Britannica does it. The international Encyclopedia of Ukraine does it "Odesa [Одеса; Rus: Odessa]" fwiw, with no diacritics in the cyrillic spelling. While I feel all these are better than the original, I think 4 or 5 work best. And detailed explanations can be handled in prose in a etymology section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're just going to die on that russian cross even though the most recent reliable language use census in Odesa is from 2001 and current media reports indicate that Ukrainian has overtaken russian after two wars with russia. Keeping two languages in the lead is not "less cluttered" than having just one language in the lead. The obvious solution is:
  1. Odesa (Ukrainian: Оде́са [oˈdɛsɐ]) or Odessa.
It's clear that the russian variant is both orthographically and phonetically only trivially different from the Ukrainian and therefore offers no real information to the reader that they can't find later in the article if they're really interested. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’d be okay with moving the Ukrainian pronunciation to the “Name” section too. It is not something that every reader needs to see immediately. —Michael Z. 01:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I might prefer choice 4, I agree and also would be okay with choice 5. Everything can just be handled in a name or etymology section in prose. I certainly can't deny it would be the cleanest look. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date of name change from Odessa to Odesa

It is not mentioned anywhere in this article, therefore, unclear, when the name change from Odessa to Odesa occurred. Perhaps in 1991? This requires clarification. Tachypaidia (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was never an "official" change of name. The name has always been "Odesa" in Ukrainian and always "Odessa" in Russian. The city name is still "Odesa" in Ukrainian language documents and "Odessa" in Russian language documents. If you look at Odesa's official website, you can see the difference between the Ukrainian and the Russian language versions. Odesa official website (Ukrainian) Odessa official website (Russian) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The prevailing English spelling has been in the process of changing over several years, and it is partly the result of official changes. Ukrainian became the sole official language of Ukraine upon its independence in 1991, and Odesa was adopted as the official Latin-alphabet romanization in 1996. From there, international organizations and place-name databases adopted it, and more English-language references and writers gradually did. A lot of journalistic sources reevaluated their practice in the light of Ukrainian self-determination after the 2014 and 2022 Russian invasions. —Michael Z. 01:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These explanations seem deficient and implausible. The assertion that the name has “always been” in Ukrainian is suspect since the word is neither Ukrainian or Russian, but Greek, i.e., Odessos. In the Russian practice of forming names of cities in feminine form (although Odessos is already feminine in Greek, the “-os” ending gives a masculine impression), an “-a” ending was substituted. This occurred from the founding of Odessa, and would have been in the founding naming documents of the city. At some time, Ukrainian lost an “s.” Perhaps following pronunciation which articulates only one “s” (but so does Russian). It would seem that consulting the city’s documents would be informative: perhaps this divergence dates as earlier as the 1917-1922 Soviet period? In any instance, somewhere along the line there was a change, and identifying it would be helpful. Tachypaidia (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a different datapoint - "Odessos" is Varna, Bulgaria, anyways. the transliteration of Odrysian kingdom is almost Odrysian now, but has often been Odryssian in the past. same thing with thasos vs thassos, etc. Cononsense (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is wrong on two levels. (1) if one consults the article itself, we see: "This refers to the second ancient Odessos, founded between the end of the 5th and beginning of the 4th centuries BC (the first one, identified with modern Varna in Bulgaria, is the older of the two, founded c. 610 BC). The exact location of this ancient Odessos is unknown, but modern efforts have attempted to localize it 40 km northeast of Odesa, near the village of Koshary [uk], Odesa Oblast. (2) in attempting to date the Ukrainian change, the only data point of relevance is the orignal Greek name upon which it was based and its subsequent transmissions. Tachypaidia (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, but "odessos" seems like it's mostly referring to the famous milesian colony, which is definitely at the site of Varna.
it's interesting how the toponym changed spellings even in greek:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/An_Inventory_of_Archaic_and_Classical_Po/h7kRDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA936&printsec=frontcover
also 'Одесос' is the spelling in bulgarian Cononsense (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t believe in 1795 they distinguished distinct places named Odessos or reliably knew their locations. —Michael Z. 17:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the referent city is the Odessa that is the neighboring village of Koshary, 40km or a same day trip on foot; or the Odessa in Bulgaria, a 570km journey, is of little relevance regarding the name (though it would seem that the Empress Catherine naming the town Odessa, which was believed to be nearby, and likely is, seems beyond coincidence). Yes, toponyms change, and sometimes revert back to older forms; but that is all the more a basis for dating the change. 108.45.125.107 (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you meant a supposed change from Ukrainian *Одесса to Одеса? I doubt any Ukrainian orthographies ever used the Russian double consonant, so it’s probably a wrong assumption that “Ukrainian lost an S.” Perhaps it was used in transcribing Greek text, but that is a different question.
By the way, English Odessos/Odesa was also spelled with the single S since before its modern re-foundation. See wikt:Citations:Odesa. —Michael Z. 16:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was also called Адес (Ades) in Ukrainian.[25]  —Michael Z. 16:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Ukrainian Greek Odessos is Одессос. —Michael Z. 17:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why you would suppose that the Ukrainian never reproduced the name in the founding documents. That's hard to see. I am not scholar in this area, but if I were to pose a hypothesis, I would begin with the literary material of the 19th century, and the timing of the oral and written language. It may be that Ukrainian relied primarily on the oral language and that lead to omission of 2nd "s" in the written language. Russian being the keeper of the legal documents may have kept the original spelling. It would seem that the 19th century lexicons and literature would be informative for (a) when the single "s" appeared in documents, and (b) when it was officially issued (= issued by the authoritative office), which I think could not have happened earlier than 1917-1922; but it may not be until 1991. If there an office-issued change of the name, its history would be quite informative.
BTW, Odessos remained unchanged from Ancient Greek (c. 600 BC) to Modern Greek today, for which, as you inform us, is also still the case in Ukrainian Greek. Tachypaidia (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But "Odessos" is a transliteration of the Greek word, not a Ukrainian form. As noted above, Ukrainian has never used a double "s". But all this discussion of any placename other than the city founded by Catherine the Great is irrelevant because the name "Odes(s)a" for that place is all that matters. By the 18th century, there was a distinction between long consonants in Russian (which are always pronounced long) and long consonants in Ukrainian which always have a morpheme boundary between them and are always pronounced short. Thus, there has never been a morpheme boundary between the two "s" in "Odessa" (as spelled by Catherine) so the placename would always be "Odesa" in Ukrainian and pronounced short. But in discussing "official" names, then the Russian name was the official name in the Russian Empire. But since Ukrainian speakers NEVER had a long consonant in the pronunciation of the name since Ukrainian always shortens doubled consonants when they occur at morpheme boundaries, "Odesa" would have been the written form when writing Ukrainian. Unfortunately, Ukrainian was long suppressed by russians and there may not be any documentation of the name in Ukrainian before the late 19th century. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stipulating to your presentation of facts (though I am a bit unclear by your saying (a) “Ukrainian which always have a morpheme boundary between [long consonants] & (b) [In Ukrainian] there has never been a morpheme boundary between the two "s”. I take this to mean that “ss” in particular case of a double consonant that does not have a morpheme boundary. (Although, at least to my ear, the long consonants here in Russian sounds very weak too, if at all). We have already established that the Ukrainian pronunciation is with a single “s”; but that does mean that the spelling followed. Place names spellings can be standardized against pronunciation, especially as required for legal and commercial purposes. Your contention that from day 1, from 2 September 1794, ”Odesa would have been the written form when writing Ukrainian”, I think is beyond the evidence. As for an official issue on this, prior to 1917 Ukrainians would not have been positioned to effect this kind of a change. It may be that the official name change came only with the current set of transliteration documents issue by Ukraine. 108.45.125.107 (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This appears analogous to taking a Greek city name with a double "ss", as say, "Colossians" (as in the NT book), and, owing to phonetics (kə-ˈlä-shənz, also kə-shē-ənz) changing it to "Colosians", and then outlawing under hefty penalties any resident who uses "Colossians". Tachypaidia (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a chat forum. This conversation purely hypothetical to the second degree (since no one here knows how Odesa’s name was spelled in Ukrainian or Russian originally), and devoid of suggestions to improve this article. Please take it to your user talk pages. —Michael Z. 17:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "Since no one here knows how Odesa’s name was spelled in Ukrainian or Russian originally". What is your basis for making this claim? Consonant elision in the originality, especially given that the august Academy at St. Petersburg first proposed the name, seems beyond the pale. Your claim looks to go against every sources that I have seen on this. Claiming that the original name is obscured in a historical fog, like, "who knows?", goes to an obfuscation on dating. Tachypaidia (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please take this to user talk. —Michael Z. 19:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to legend (I'm relying on tertiary sources here), the ancient city was to be called Odessos--the Tsarina Catherin is reported to have said "Let Hadjubej bear the old Hellenic name". For secondary sources on the naming of Odessa (I have not consulted these) see:
- OA. Orlov Istoriceskij ocerk Odessy s 1794 po 1803 god.
- Sostavilpo dokumentam, chranjascimsja v Moskovskom Archive Ministerstva Justicii. Odessa 1885,pp. XI- XII.3 Tachypaidia (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific improvement to the article being discussed? This is become WP:CHAT, and should be closed or moved to another website. —Michael Z. 05:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It has no relevance to the article. As long as the official language of the Ukrainian region of whatever entity was ruling it from moscow/st. petersburg was russian, the city's name was spelled "Odessa" no matter how it was spelled when writing Ukrainian. Now that Ukrainian is the official language of Ukraine, then the city's name is spelled "Odesa" unless writing in russian. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 2019 Ukrainian Law, "On ensuring the functioning of the Ukrainian language as the state language", passed by the Verkhovna Rada on April 25, 2019 and effective July 16, 2019, Article I Sec. 6,7. Article III 6(c), Article 39 ban the use of a non-Ukrainian or non-Ukrainian spelling for government (including local) names. On July 14, 2021, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine declared this law constitutional. The law is enforced with punitive penalties. Given that the use of "Odessa" is now illegal for official (and many non-official uses), we can state affirmatively that name and use of "Odessa" has been outlawed, and the article should include this fact. Tachypaidia (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? —Michael Z. 22:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can look at the constitution (through 2019) here. I didn't see it. But there is discussion right here at the Venice Commission. There is of course our own wikipedia article at Law of Ukraine "to ensure the functioning of the Ukrainian language as the State language" that may have some links. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=2704-19#Text (Про забезпечення функціонування української мови як державної). Розділ I, Стаття 1, 6,7; Розділ I, Стаття 3, 6(c);Розділ VI, Стаття 39, Стаття39,2. Tachypaidia (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, that law sets national standards for transliteration from the official language. So the official Latin-alphabet spelling is Odesa.
All states have official languages and official names for places and institutions.
But saying “the use of Odessa is illegal” is like saying it’s illegal to write “United States of Murrica” or “Moscow.”
If you want to add such outstanding claims to the article, then the WP:burden is on you to support them with specific statements in reliable source, and then the WP:onus is on you to demonstrate consensus for inclusion. —Michael Z. 15:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited the source and make the case. I guess that I could also take up the lift of providing English translations of the sections cited (I hoped someone more qualified than I am would do so); but, otherwise, I'll give translations of those sections and then see what comments come from there. 108.45.125.107 (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one has cited a reliable secondary source saying words to the effect of “the use of "Odessa" is now illegal for official (and many non-official uses).” —Michael Z. 23:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Be sure to hold on tight to that secondary source having to make an obscure remark on this specific instance on an obvious plain language law with hefty penalties; or perhaps, someone might volunteer to break this law, and see if that person winds-up in the news section of reliable secondary source. Tachypaidia (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN is on you. —Michael Z. 03:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the source document for this lengthy and generally unfamiliar, as a aid I am posting below selections from the Language Law that I believe are directly relevant. This does not mean that other sections of the law may not have relevance to this question. I will follow-up with direct source references from this selection within the article-in-chief.
LANGUAGE LAW OF UKRAINE
On Supporting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language (updated 2020)
Section I GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Article 1. The status of the Ukrainian language as the only State language in Ukraine
6. Deliberate distortion of the Ukrainian language in official documents and texts, including its deliberate use in contravention of the requirements imposed by Ukrainian spelling and the State
language standards, as well as the creation of obstacles and restrictions in the use of the Ukrainian language, shall entail the liability established by law.
7. The status of the Ukrainian language as the only State language implies its mandatory use throughout Ukraine in the exercise of powers by government authorities and local self-government authorities, as well as in other common spheres of public life determined by this Law.
Article 3. Purposes of the Law
c) the use of the Ukrainian language in compliance with Ukrainian spelling and other State language standards;
d) the use of Ukrainian words, phrases and terms instead of foreign-language words, where corresponding equivalents exist in the Ukrainian language, and by raising public awareness of them;
Section VI
USE OF THE UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE AS THE STATE LANGUAGE IN PROPER NAMES AND TITLES
Article 39. Names of government authorities, authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, local self-government authorities
2. Official names of government authorities, authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, local self-government authorities, State- and community-owned enterprises, institutions and organisations shall be made in the State language.
Article 41. Use of the State language in geographical names and names of toponymic sites
2. Names of toponymic sites shall not be translated into other languages and shall be conveyed in official documents, mass media, cartographic, reference, encyclopaedic, educational and other publications in the letters of a relevant alphabet according to pronunciation thereof in the State language.
Official names of government authorities, authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, local self-government authorities, State and community-owned enterprises, institutions and organisations shall be made in the State language.
Section VI
Article 44. Powers of the National Commission for Standards of the State Language
a) Ukrainian spelling and any changes thereto; standards of transcription and transliteration;
Section VIII
PROTECTION OF THE STATE LANGUAGE
Article 18852. Violation of the law on the functioning and use of the Ukrainian language as the State language
Other violations of the requirements imposed by the Law of Ukraine on Supporting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language on the use of the State language than those referred to in paragraphs 1–3 of this Article - shall entail the imposition of a fine from 200 to 300 tax-free minimum individual incomes [minimum wage rate, Tachypaida] or a warning, if the offence has been committed for the first time.
A repeated violation from among those referred to in paragraphs 1–4 of this Article, were committed within a year and for which a person has already been subjected to an administrative penalty,
- shall entail the imposition of a fine from 500 to 700 tax-free minimum individual incomes [minimum wage rate, Tachypaida].
END OF EXCERPT OF THE LANGUAGE LAW OF UKRAINE Tachypaidia (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a lot of text just to show that you have seen zero reliable secondary sources that support your assertion. Please propose text for the article with WP:reliable sources, or take this to user talk. —Michael Z. 19:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read the header. Also, please note that citation of primary sources is not evidence of zero reliable secondary sources. Tachypaidia (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PSTS, we are not allowed to draw interpretations from primary sources that are not present directly in the primary source and that are not backed by secondary sources. You claimed, we can state affirmatively that name and use of "Odessa" has been outlawed. This has not been demonstrated to Wikipedia's standard and cannot go in the article at this time. Kahastok talk 20:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we could resort to what I said on this: "I will follow-up with direct source references from this selection within the article-in-chief." That is to say, I can use it as a direct source for factual information without adding an interpretation or positing it as basis for original research. I think, though, that everyone reading the plain language law on his own can draw his own obvious conclusions. Tachypaidia (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you use it without adding an interpretation, in a way that implies your claim, that's original research, just as it would be if you made the implication explicit.
If you use it without adding an interpretation, in a way that does not imply you claim, then it's an irrelevant factoid with no connection to the article topic.
Either way, it doesn't belong on the article. Kahastok talk 21:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you said has no practical sense. Tachypaidia (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the UNGEGN adopted Ukrainian National romanization system in 2012, “Odessa” is being outlawed worldwide, but not criminalized. Yet. —Michael Z. 22:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what's happening here. I thought, as you wrote above, "But saying “the use of Odessa is illegal” is like saying it’s illegal to write “United States of Murrica” or “Moscow.” which also made no sense; but anyway, it seems now you're are recognizing the 2019 Ukrainian law, as for example,
Article 39(2), "Official names of government authorities, authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, local self-government authorities, State- and community-owned enterprises, institutions and organisations shall be made in the State language." Yes? Tachypaidia (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Outlawed"? I don't think that really anywhere is it being outlawed, nor should it be. Usage changes and press MOS also changes. That's not outlawing worldwide. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not sure what's happening here? Above in this Talk section, I research, extract, and posted (in English) the nine (9) provisions from the 30 page 2019 Ukrainian language law (held to be constitutional on July 14, 2021) that outlaws the where and the when of penalties for using non-Ukrainian names. The penalty of the 1st infraction is a fine in the range of 200 to 300 times the minimum wage (making an equivalent calculation for the US, given a $15 minimum wage, would be $3,000 - $4,500 (though, with discretion, you may be let off with a warning on the first time.) But repeated infractions in the same year is 500 - 700 times the minimum wage (USA equiv. $7,500 - $10,500). Certainly looks to be against the law to me. Tachypaidia (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that research and extract alone doesn't cut it here. You need to link to a reliable source on the exact law that tells us it is absolutely a crime... no interpretation at all. It needs to be specific on who will be fined or what organizations will be fined. It does not have to be a secondary source though. Secondary sources are mostly used to show notability. If a "primary" official law on the books shows exactly that anyone will be fined or jailed for using a word, then that should be good enough. Whether it's notable enough to include is another story. We may have president Biden's shoe size in primary, secondary, and tertiary, sources... but it's not notable enough to include in an article. Perhaps what you are suggesting would be better suited to the Ukraine article rather than one particular city. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the law is freshly-minted (I believe Zalinskyy signed a final provision last month), the legal experience on this change may be negligible; plus, Ukrainian-Russia war is center. The general point of when Ukrainian city names have been renamed (and I think there are about 900 city/town re-names, I believe) it's easy to document. Dates are published. The change from Odessa to Odesa is more limited, and, I believe, requires separate attention. Thank you for your thoughtful advice and helpful overview on this. Tachypaidia (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Odesa was never renamed. —Michael Z. 01:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the city area or how they do things in Ukraine. In the US we usually have signs that say welcome to farmville or now entering the town of Burbsopia. Possibly even freeway signs that say Sants Clausland next 8 exits. If a township or city or community changes it's name all those signs are also changed. How do they handle things in Odesa or Kyiv or other Ukrainian towns? Have the signs always been spelled the same, have they changed? Do the cities in Crimea still have the same town and street signs as they did prior to 2014? Does Odesa or Kyiv have both Russian and Ukrainian names on their signs or did they ever. I have no idea. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sign change is not renaming.[26] In Ukraine it has represented colonization, genocide, and decolonization. What does this have to do with improving the article? Please take it to user talk. —Michael Z. 15:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because changes made by the govt (you don't just make a new sign in your garage) is pertinent whether you like it or not. I thought someone might know to help us here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when Ukraine left the Soviet Union the only official language was now Ukrainian, and eventually regulations were enacted and signage was changed from Russian to Ukrainian and Latin-alphabet romanization (example). The city was never renamed. Now foreign occupying forces are changing signs to Russian where they have overthrown legal governance. Am I helping? —Michael Z. 15:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sole legal status of a new name and the illegalization of the use of the old name is primae facie evidence of a name change. I see no basis for requiring that an official name change be executed such that the new and old name are in a single legislative action. The question should be separated: it appears that the argument to the contrary is on not this standard, but only whether it can properly demonstrated to have occurred via reliable sources. Tachypaidia (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They’re not different names. They’re the same name in a different language. The name has never been changed. Please take this nonsense to talk so we don’t have to monitor it and feel obligated to address misinformation. Come back here when you have a specific proposal to add to the text. Thanks. —Michael Z. 19:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to prove that in making such a bold statement. No one died and made you God of everything Odesa and Ukraine. I'm trying to understand how it works there so I can make a better informed decision on what constitutes a name change in Ukraine. Local name changes could be very important to this article and Ukraine articles as a whole. I thought you and others might have a better grasp on how it works there on the local level. If you don't know then ok. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to prove what? If you can’t provide references showing that someone changed the name of the city, then our article won’t say that someone changed the name of the city. If sources don’t say that Ukraine criminalized the name “Odessa,” or “Одесса,” or something, then Wikipedia doesn’t say so either. The WP:BURDEN is on you. Until you have something like that, then all this speculative chat is a waste of time and energy.
It’s also somewhat offensive given there’s plenty of articles on actual human rights abuses to improve based on actual reliable sources. —Michael Z. 21:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Los Angeles changes all it's street signs to Ukrainian cyrillic and I can show a local edict that shows when, you better believe it's a name change that will be in the Los Angeles article. It doesn't matter if it's Los Angeles in Ukrainian. Someone wants to know if we should put a name change date in this article based on Ukrainian Law. They have shown some very interesting law changes to back up their claims. I feel it's more Ukrainian-centric rather than Odesa-centric but it is worth discussing on whether it should be mentioned in this or other articles. What is offensive to me is your pish-toshing it away as nonsense. If while under Russian control, everything in the city was Odessafied in language.. then ok. If while under Ukrainian control everything became Odesafied.. then ok. If the entire city was always an amalgam of Russian/Ukrainian language and no local signage ordinances took place.. then ok. If new laws have happened to outlaw Russian signage and documents.. then ok. All that is valid, to be mentioned in an article if sourced. It's not for personal talk pages... it's for right here. Yes it must be sourced whether secondary, primary, or tertiary. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I am pish-toshing is the intent to write “the use of ‘Odessa’ is now illegal” and “name and use of ‘Odessa’ has been outlawed,” and the insistence that we conduct some original research to date some renaming that never occurred to prove that. This is the closest this entire discussion has come to proposing changes to the article and that is nonsense.
If you want to know when signage changed, then search for the sources. There are a lot of articles in Wikipedia that already talk about language policy, and you can improve them too. This discussion has not be about those things. —Michael Z. 16:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now what we need is an exact sentence to include in this article, or perhaps just the Ukraine article, with the source that backs the sentence. Until we see exactly what is proposed it's hard to judge whether it's worthy. It's certainly not going to be more than a long sentence or it would fail undue weight. The proposer needs to show his fellow editors where it would be placed and what exactly it should say. Then we can better discuss the merit of including it at all or perhaps tweaking the proposal to more fit the source. Until we see that it's hard to judge anything. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some places to start about language use and name changes in Ukraine:
Odesa was never renamed. In Ukrainian it remains Одеса, in Russian Одесса, and in English we now use one spelling (which has seen use for centuries) more often than the other. —Michael Z. 16:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Official documentation is dispositive. Sourcing will be demonstrative. Please consider evidentiary replies. Tachypaidia (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only person here who remembers WP:COMMON. That policy states clearly what is our true practice instead of blindly applying WP:OFFICIAL names. Therefore I do not understand why such a comprehensive discussion is taking place dealing with the laws of Ukrainian language. This is the English language Wikipedia. We are not an Ukrainian institute and we do not use the Ukrainian language. Laws of the Ukrainian language that have not legal value outside of Ukraine have no importance to us here. For similar reasons we DO include illustrations of Muhammad in his article, despite that being illegal in many Islamic countries. Wikipedia is NOT censored. Thus the claim that Odessa (spelt with double s) is illegal in English (or more broadly Latin) is illegal is wrong, as the cited laws only apply to Ukrainian language and only in that country. We base the names of our articles on what is most commonly used in reputable English-language sources and if that is Odessa in this case, that is what we use, period.Tvx1 19:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the question; rather, it's a question fact: that is, within the State of Ukraine, and the State of Ukraine only, is the name "Оде́сса" or its transliteration "Odessa" illegal as an official name; and if so, as of when. It's an empirical question of fact: yes or no. That's it. This question has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, period. Tachypaidia (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy is WP:verifiability, not your desired WP:truth. If you want to discuss supposed facts for which you cannot produce reliable secondary sources, please find a chat forum about it somewhere else. —Michael Z. 23:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only within the Ukrainian language. Odessa is not illegal. The state of Ukraine has nothing to say regarding English language and its writing. And their laws have no bearing on the name and the usage within this article.Tvx1 15:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. The legal status of "Одесса" in Ukraine appears clear; that is the factual point. The status of the use of English "Odessa" in Ukraine is less clear, but at least from official websites of Ukraine, it appears that the prohibition extends to "Odessa" as well, but verification of that legal status requires further research. Tachypaidia (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such a holy crap!

This is English part of Wikipedia, so all this Holy Crap about spelling Odessa with one 'S' make me wonder if we will spell differently about a dozen of places in USA alone that contain word "Odessa". Whole word went into madness. 203.219.83.10 (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odesa&oldid=1106062912"