Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cities in Kherson Oblast/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of cities in Kherson Oblast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 20:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since my other Crimea list FLN has gotten supports and FLNs generally take time, going ahead and nominating this one now to get it started. This list's content is already somewhat prepared, with a lot of it being indirectly reviewed in the past successful FLNs for list of cities in Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast as well as the ongoing FLNs for Zaporizhzhia Oblast and Crimea. Together with Mykolaiv Oblast, Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts are the only oblasts with less than 10 cities so these lists will likely be somewhat shorter than the rest. That said, considering List of cities in New Brunswick was recently able to pass FLN even with only its eight cities, I'm fairly confident that this (and eventually the Mykolaiv list) will be able to be promoted too. Thanks in advance to everyone for all the feedback and excited to continue the series! :) Dan the Animator 20:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[edit]- "including the cities Beryslav and Kherson" => "including the cities of Beryslav and Kherson"
- "centered on the village Oleksandrivka" => "centered on the village of Oleksandrivka"
- That's literally all I got - great work once again! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed; thanks ChrisTheDude! :) Dan the Animator 21:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Alavense
[edit]- Settlements with more than 10,000 people are eligible for city status although the status is typically also granted to settlements of historical or regional importance - Probably a comma missing before "although".
- the regional capital Kherson, --> the regional capital, Kherson,
- from its previous name Tsiurupynsk for Tsiurupynsk's connection - I would leave it like this: "from its previous name, Tsiurupynsk, for its connection"
- including the capital Kherson, --> "including the capital, Kherson,"
- As of 22 December 2022 - It feels as a bit of a distant date already.
- Links to Ukrainian Wikipedia articles --> "Links to the Ukrainian Wikipedia articles"
That's what I saw, Dantheanimator. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Alavense! I think I fixed all of them. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Dan the Animator 18:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits and nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I've left a notice about this nom at WP:WikiProject Ukraine. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by CMD
[edit]For the director/delegates, I reviewed the Donetsk and Luhansk noms so I don't know how much novel thought I'm bringing here, but anyway.
- Is "typically" in "typically granted" the right word? What Ukrainian word is being translated for that?
- The phrasing's mine based on the information from the sources, not that it's worded that way in any of the Ukrainian refs (the All About Accounting ref (#4) lists the considerations that are used for granting city status under "Стаття 2. Утворення (ліквідація) населених [...] категорії" while the Ukraina Moloda specifies the general 10,000 population benchmark that allows for automatic city status). It was supposed to emphasize that the status is flexible and has been given to a lot of places that aren't necessarily all the same. After giving it more thought tho, I just removed the word "typically" since it doesn't really add much and it looks like it would probably need an additional source imo. Just in case, let me know if you think it should be re-added.
- That said, I'm also starting to wonder now, do you think the sentence should be reworded to include more of the considerations listed on ref #4? There's a lot of considerations and when wording the sentence, I tried to make it so it would get the general idea across but I could reword it to say
Settlements with more than 10,000 people are eligible for city status, although the status is also granted based on a number of other considerations.
and add in an efn note listing all the considerations from ref #4. Another option too is to leave the wording as-is and add an efn note saying something along the linesSince the enactment of new administrative laws in 2020, the factors considered by the Verkhovna Rada are...
. Personally think its fine as-is but interested to know your thoughts.- The issue with relying too much on Article 2 of the source is that it seems generically associated with all settlement types. Article 10 (and 12 I guess) do not mention them. Transitional note 4 is perhaps more key as it grandfathers in city statues. I think keeping it at a brief mention as currently done works well, absent a secondary source doing analysis on the law. CMD (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That said, I'm also starting to wonder now, do you think the sentence should be reworded to include more of the considerations listed on ref #4? There's a lot of considerations and when wording the sentence, I tried to make it so it would get the general idea across but I could reword it to say
- "official census", is there a need to specify "official"? It begs the question of an unofficial census.
- Yes, the wording is necessary and very intentional. The 2022 estimates are often times referred to as Ukraine's "unofficial census" and I think there have been some privately led attempts at collecting census information across Ukraine since 2001. The 2001 census is also the only traditional census by the government that's been held across the entirety of independent Ukraine so it's important to emphasize the importance of the census and why its numbers are used in the lead instead of the more recent 2022 estimates.
- How would you feel about appending new footnote [e] explaining 2022 to that sentence (maybe after footnote [a]?), to explain this answer to the question raised? CMD (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure the "As of 11 July 2023" note is needed, but won't oppose due to it.
- Thought it'd be a good idea to have in case there's another government-held census in Ukraine sooner than later.
- "...for its connection...", subject of "its" is unclear. Maybe "...due to the previous name's connection...".
- I think saying "the previous name" twice makes the sentence sound a bit too repetitive (
Oleshky, was renamed in 2016 from its previous name, Tsiurupynsk, due to the previous name's connection with
). Maybe there's another way to phrase it with less repetition? I'm okay also with making the change but I think it'd be preferable to not have it that repetitive.
- What about adjusting the start of the sentence to explain "decommunization" there, eg. "Following the passing of decommunization laws aimed at removing names with connections to people, places, events, and organizations associated with the Soviet Union, one city within the oblast, Tsiurupynsk, was renamed Oleshky in 2016." CMD (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think saying "the previous name" twice makes the sentence sound a bit too repetitive (
- Would suggest starting a new paragraph at "From independence in 1991...", seems a separate topic.
- I tested it out but I think it makes the lead appear too long for its amount of text. As it reads right now, the whole 2nd paragraph is about the Russian invasion and its effects while the first paragraph is the general information so I think the organization is alright imo.
- After I made this comment, I did find that the Odesa list uses this split. Is there a reason it works for one and not the other? CMD (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of which, "From independence in 1991..." does not seem correct, some or all of the cities (at least Kakhovka) may have had that status prior to 1991 as there was administrative continuity through the breakup of the Soviet Union. "Prior to 2020..." may handle the relevant information for this article's purposes.
- Used "Prior to.." wording. Thanks! :)
- Is the Kakhovka Dam sentence relevant here?
- I think so since the flooding had a heavy impact on the cities but I'm also open to taking it out if there's a compelling case for it.
- It's not wrong, it mostly feels unspecific to cities. CMD (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the events of 2022, it is probably worth specifying the table population estimates are from January (ie, pre-invasion) 2022.
- Added in an efn note but would appreciate some help in rewording/phrasing it right (its footnote e).
- Maybe not "accurate as of" given they are estimates and they are specifically for that date. Perhaps past tense as well, otherwise it gets the message across. CMD (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a general statement that can be added to the lead regarding why the populations just dropped across the board from 2001 to 2022?
- Working on it... The population drops are for the same reasons of demographic decline in the rest of Ukraine before the war and other Eastern European countries (mostly economic stagnation, lack of jobs/opportunities, and political disfunction). Will add another reply when ready with the edits.
Impressive that the estimate for Oleshky was one off the 2001 census. CMD (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, quiet the coincidence, although who wouldn't want to live next to one of Ukraine's few deserts? ;) Dan the Animator 04:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems we lack articles on two of them, although Kuialnyk Estuary is in the category at uk.wiki for some reason. CMD (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because the estuary has almost entirely dried up and has essentially turned into a salt field (1, 2), which could be classified as a type of a desert. Though there are works on saving the estuary, for example in 2022 the area became a national park. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 05:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems we lack articles on two of them, although Kuialnyk Estuary is in the category at uk.wiki for some reason. CMD (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review by Generalissima
[edit]- Sources are mainly high quality government sources that support the text - except for that citation needed tag in the footnote.
- Consistent formatting: dates are good, websites all have access dates and such. Source #7 has instructions for access which I enjoy. Wikilinks where applicable.
- There was an out-of-order citation which I fixed.
@Dantheanimator: Just add a citation for the Kinburn Peninsula thing and we should be good. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dantheanimator, just following up regarding this review. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dantheanimator: Are you able to fix that citation needed tag in the footnote? That's all that's remaining, I think. --PresN 13:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Generalissima, Hey man im josh, and PresN: hey all, apologies for the delay... it's been incredibly busy off-wiki for me recently. I was hoping to find the sources for the whole footnote as it was, and I'm sure there are sources that talk about the de facto/de jure admin divisions in the oblast, but I don't have enough time at the moment to complete that search. That said, I commented out the unsourced part of the footnote (which is less than half of a sentence) and added in refs for the rest of it. I'm personally planning on going back and following through with CMD's suggestions above and doing more research/reworking on this and the other oblast cities lists eventually but this list now should be good enough to promote. Many thanks Generalissima for the source review and Josh and PresN for the pings and feel free to message me anytime (I might be a bit slow to reply sometimes but I'll definitely keep checking). Dan the Animator 14:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dantheanimator: Are you able to fix that citation needed tag in the footnote? That's all that's remaining, I think. --PresN 13:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 16:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.