Template talk:Administrative divisions of Ukraine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Ukraine (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

People, I don't like both the look and the content of this table. On the look: after you renamed oblasts in 2004 (while I, the founder of the Subdivisions topic :)), was absent), the oblast names look typically ambiguous :(. Seeing the title Poltava for both the Poltava Oblast (instead of Poltavska) and the Poltava proper links, the reader simply suspects editing mistake!! So I think the links for oblasts should be named in full. I guess it would make the table larger and less editable - but not confusing.

On content: having 25 principal cities for such a non-important world country as Ukraine is boring. You'd say: that's encyclopedia! But I ask: how many Americans know 25 principal U.S. cities? Practically, I'd never call Lutsk or Kirovohrad (with all my respect) a "principal city" in a political and/or economic sense. And, BTW, who's gonna develop all those 25 city pages :)))? My suggestions are (variants):

  • ten or better five biggest cities (by population)
  • cities that represent typical regional subcultures:

Any other thoughts?AlexPU 14:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Americans might not know all of the 25 "principal" cities but they should remain here because they are important oblast adminstrative centers. We could possibly rename it main administrative cities or smthing like that. And about developing those 25 cities, I did as much as I could with the small amount of info I have, i.e adding some minor info (sometimes more info), some pictures, and the corresponding infoboxes. At least now they look more decent than they were before. But as I said, they should remain here. —DDima (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
"As you said" :)? "They should" :)? Look, I find your non-cooperativeness disturbing... I'm here for three years but I don't use such wording. So I'll just edit unilaterally if you don't compromise :((. Of course I won't reduce the number of cities if you promise to develop them. But rewording of this template is I believe really needed.AlexPU 12:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


This template was created in september 2004 by Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukrainian subdivisions. What should be done with it? It also follows a consistent pattern used by most similar templates (listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes). Circeus 20:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Administrative divisions of Ukraine serves the same purpose as this template. At some point we switched from one to the other. This template is actually the one that is now used on all subdivision pages, and the other one is retired, so I can just redict the other one here. --MapLover 06:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Cities with special status[edit]

Do we really need to list them separately, as it was in the Template:Oblasti? --MapLover 06:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as they are not oblasts, but different entities, although of the same level one step below the national one. --Irpen 06:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
For sure, they are not oblasts. And they are not listed as oblasts in this template. They are listed one level below national, I guess, as they should. --MapLover 06:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, have it your way for now, especially since Tufkaa reverted me already. I thought lumping cities and provinces together is more confusion than an extra line. I don't really care since the administrative subdivisions is not my cup of tee. --Irpen 07:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


I wonder how many English-speaking people with no particular knowledge of country subdivisions will know that an "oblast" is the Ukranian/Eastern European term for something like a "region". Perhaps its use here (and elsewhere) should be "Regions (Oblasti)" or "Oblasti / Oblasts (regions)" or something like that. Unlike "commune", for instance, I'd say "oblast" is not used nor recognized by non-specialist people with English as their primary language (and most wouldn't know that "commune" is used as a country subdivision, unless they'd visited Switzerland, etc). Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Crimea and Sevastopol[edit]

Iryna Harpy and Nemboysha, why don't you try to settle your dispute here on the talk page instead of going through the pointless edit war? Feon {t/c} 14:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for opening this discussion, Feon. I thought it a pointless exercise per WP:NOTHERE but, as you have noted, it has escalated into a slow edit war which I have no interest in engaging in without discussion.
I requested that Nemboysha engage with me per a message on his/her talk page 13 April 2014 (corresponding with their first edit sans edit summary), then twice again adding a specific information as to which policies and guidelines were being invoked, and have heard nothing from the user. A single edit summary on 14 April of, "it is undisputably administered by russia" does not constitute a BRD discussion.
I would appreciate a genuine discussion and ask that Nemboysha respond with their arguments here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, Feon, it appears that Nemboysha has not engaged in editing activities, nor wishes to engage here.
If there are any relevant arguments regarding how best to qualify the status of Crimea and Sevastopol for articles representing one and the other nation-state, I'm open to suggestions. There's been so much edit-warring and input traffic on all articles related to Ukraine and Russia that establishing neutral terminology for infoboxes, templates, etc. has been overlooked in favour of the content of the actual articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
If no one else wishes to engage, then this dispute seems to be settled. Feon {t/c} 06:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
At some point in future, when the dust has settled, there will be time to address these details properly. Until then, keeping the POV as neutral as possible is my only concern. Sadly, it doesn't look as if it's going to end in the near future. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)