Talk:Khrestivka

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

Move to Khrestivka[edit]

User:Ymblanter, regarding the edit summary “Ymblanter moved page Khrestivka to Kirovske, Donetsk Oblast: there is consensus against the move at the moment,” where was this consensus reached? —Michael Z. 16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We had a discussion after the Verkhovna Rada removed all these localities, on the page of one of those (Talk:Myrnohrad or smth like this), and the consensus was to move evetythingwhich is controlled by Ukraine (not Crimea, not DPR, and not LPR). In addition, even the Verkhovna Rada decided that the renames of localities which are in the occupied territories will be in fonce once the territories have ceased be occupied. There is no reason for the moves, this is the same bunch of users whoc are only interested in moves bnut not in building the encyclopedia who are moving the articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If there is a longstanding consensus, or if it can be formalized in a general discussion, it could be noted in WP:UAPLACE to get ahead of these ongoing disagreements. I see the Rada’s statement is quoted in Decommunization in Ukraine: “will enter force with the return of temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol under the general jurisdiction of Ukraine.” Your argument is sound. That last, toxic sentence just distracts and undermines it. —Michael Z. 19:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely do not mind adding this to WP:UAPLACE. However, the very page which we are discussing now, says (and this was not added by me, but by somebody else) that the renaming process is currently suspended. It sis not stop a driveby editor from moving the article. A notice on some page they would never read would not stop either.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but we’d have a convention to refer to. Could even post a banner on every affected article for self-serve deterrence. —Michael Z. 20:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey of current Google News search yields:

It is debatable whether there is a single WP:COMMONNAME at all, but if there is, there is no evidence it isn’t the official name Khrestivka which is in use in sources; see WP:NAMECHANGES. A quick look at Google Books results since 2017 (name was changed in 2016) looks similar – most references are to settlements elsewhere; very few are to this one – but I haven’t bothered combing through them all. —Michael Z. 19:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 —Michael Z. 19:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to freeze all these moves until the war is over, or a major ceasefire has been in force, and we could have a comprehensive RM. Otherwise, we are bound to have the requests every couple of weeks, depending on which exactly source the authors of the lates article use, see Izium. Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure which these moves you mean: locations occupied before February 24, or all locations occupied which is a moving target and likely to remain so. Either way, I disagree, I don’t think our guidelines support the idea which has an element of WP:crystal, if usage changes we should follow, and we have many new move requests every day anyway.
The in-progress move nomination for Izium is full of misinformation, and that city’s spelling has nothing to do with renamings or occupation, so I really don’t see it as a precedent for this, one way or the other.
Anyway, I am just discussing this one for now. —Michael Z. 02:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean all locations which were somehow affected by the war (including those in DPR/LPR and Crimea). The coverage is inconsistent at the moment, and it is better to wait. Ymblanter (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is to be taken into consideration. But coverage never will be perfectly consistent. Wikipedia is a WP:work in progress, and we can choose to improve parts of it when we can, and not wait for some undefined event to unshackle us. WP:Consistency is only one guiding principle among many, and not an end result that all others must be sacrificed for. Etcetera. —Michael Z. 13:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 October 2023[edit]

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: not moved (non-admin closure). There is a consensus against moving these as a bulk lot, but no prejudice against renominating any of them individually. Jenks24 (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– Reliable sources refer to these settlements in Russian-occupied Ukraine by their official Ukrainian government names, rather than the communist-era names used by the illegal Russian occupation administrations. See style guides by The Guardian [3] and AP [4] that strongly recommend using Ukrainian standard names and transliterations. This is the same reason WP uses Bakhmut rather than Artemivsk/Artyomovsk. Also, per WP:UAPLACE, In most cases, use the Ukrainian national romanisation system to transliterate Ukrainian place names, unless an alternative name or transliteration is demonstrably more common in (English-language) reliable sources. I've seen the occasional claim in previous RMs that there has been consensus to not move the titles of Russian-occupied settlements, but I've never been shown the actual discussion where such consensus was found. In the absence of that kind of consensus, we should stick to the UAPLACE standards of using the legal Ukrainian government names, especially since reliable sources appear to recommend using those.

To my knowledge, these are the last remaining settlements in occupied areas of Ukraine (excluding Crimea) with decommunized names that are not yet reflected in their Wikipedia article titles. I'm leaving out Crimea - as well as abolished raions like Telmanove Raion and Krasnodon Raion - for now because I think those will be more controversial due to the Ukrainian government no longer considering those raions as legal entities, and I'm not sure as to what the exact situation is regarding Crimean settlements, as the legal documents are a spaghetti of amendments and dependent clauses I haven't really untangled yet. HappyWith (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Krasnodon/Sorokyne has been removed from the multimove due to convincing arguments against its move. HappyWith (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a serious problem with this discussion. First, if you do not know something and you are not willing to ask or to find it yourself, it does not mean it does not exist. Search at Talk:Myrnohrad. Second, and more important. All previous decisions concerning names of Ukrainian localities were based on the premise that none of them have individiual English names (the identified exceptions were Kyiv, Odesa, and Chernobyl). Now, you want to disregard this premise. Fine. But then we should look at WP:COMMONNAME and consider all these localities individually (and not just count a number of Google hits but really show what it the English name of each locality in independent, reliable, non-partisan sources). If you do not want to do this, we are now arguing what are the names of localities which Ukraine renamed but never controlled since - and I would argue that since the localities are populated by Russian speakers, are administered by Russia, then may be the common name is a Russian name. If any of them is retaken by Ukraine, I will be the first one to vote move. For the time being, I see a lot of propaganda and no arguments based on our policies. Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see any consensus about titles occupied settlements at that talk page you linked. One user mentioned Crimean settlements (which this RM deliberately does not involve), and another user briefly mentions L/DPR-controlled settlements, but doesn't actually argue against moving them.
You say that since the localities are populated by Russian speakers, are administered by Russia, then may be the common name is a Russian name, but that doesn't make sense in this context. We're not talking about the common name locally, of the people who live there. English Wikipedia uses the English common name, the one that is used by English-language sources. The argument in the nom is that most English language sources have shifted to uniformly using the official government names for these settlements, and so Wikipedia should follow their example. If this was the Russian-language Wikipedia, then it maybe would be different, but in this context, we should only consider English-language sources. HappyWith (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please state clearly whether you think each of these localities have a common English name or they have no common English names. If they do please renominate them individually, as well as every locality you want to rename in the future. So far the premise was they do not have common English names. Ymblanter (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that question is that relevant to my argument. My argument is based on WP:UAPLACE, that we should use the official names unless an alternative name or transliteration is demonstrably more common in (English-language) reliable sources. It hasn't been demonstrated that they do have English common names, so we should move them to their official legal names until such a demonstration is made.
(If I had to guess, I'd say these settlements probably don't have common names in English. Most of them have very short WP articles, which would suggest a lack of major coverage in English-language sources. I'm not certain on this, but like I said I don't think this affects my argument.) HappyWith (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if they have common English names, you would need to renominate them separately. If they do not, I see an application of UAPLACE to localities which have actually never been controlled by Ukraine (i.e. the renames were just on paper and in no way affected the life in those localities) highly questionable. I am pretty sure Krasnodon is a way more common name then Sorokyne for example. If you ask the inhabitants of the city they probably do not even know what Sorokyne is, but every one knows that the Young Guard were in Krasnodon. For the record, I agree that at least those far from the frontline do not have common English names. Ymblanter (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it’s the illegal Russian occupation that affected life in these localities, by preventing their legal names from being used by the inhabitants (just one minor denial of human rights, among many far worse crimes against Ukrainian law, crimes against international law, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the Genocide Convention).
But we do not title Wikipedia articles according to how names affect life in the subject localities.  —Michael Z. 19:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that for larger settlements like Krasnodon and Sverdlovsk we can determine the more commonly used English name (Krasnodon actually has more hits on Google news than Sorokyne). Of course all of there places are mostly Russian-speaking and Russian was a recognised regional language before 2014. Note that there is a precedent mentioned at WP:MLN (which is a guideline, unlike WP:UAPLACE) of using the language of the local linguistic majority to determine the name of the article. Alaexis¿question? 06:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about a debate between using the Ukrainian and Russian languages. All of these articles are already at Ukrainian-language titles. HappyWith (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, the analogy is not exact, my point was that there is a precedent for using a locally used name (German or Italian in South Tirol; Soviet-era ones in the occupied Lugansk oblast). Alaexis¿question? 08:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MLN refers to “cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages.” This is not the case here. The only authority in Ukraine is Ukrainian law, and it recognizes only one official name for these places. The illegal foreign occupation that imposes its official names by force, whether it lasts a week or ten years, is not an authority outside of Russia.  —Michael Z. 19:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. If there are individual cases where the English common name is clearly as proposed, then bring those in their own RMs, with clear evidence that the proposed name is common. I don't think a blanket move is appropriate though, per WP:MLN and points made above.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm personally in favour of moving the articles to their current official Ukrainian names but I agree with the above !votes that these moves should be grounded in extensive use of the "new" names among English-language secondary sources (enough to surpass the current use amongst secondary sources of the old Soviet names). If I get the time, I'll try and do some digging myself to build a case for each of these but I definitely also agree with the above that it would be best to do this one settlement at a time. In any case, I'm certain there's at least a few settlements on the list that can (and can't) be renamed based on this criteria presently. Cheers, Dan the Animator 09:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:COMMONNAME defintively has more relevance than WP:UAPLACE. All of these cases require individual analysis. According to this RM, there's only twelve places in Ukraine (excluding Crimea) that we aren't using Ukrianian names for yet; that's absolutely great, and I believe it makes more sense to start individual RMs for each one. This will also make the consensus stronger.
Out of curiosity I looked up if this RM would be appropriate for Krasnodon. In 2023, 23 papers used Krasnodon (one of them is actually the ISW) [5] while 5 used Sorokyne [6]. Since 2019, 166 have used Krasnodon [7] and 11 have used Sorokyne [8]; noticeably, in many of these cases the menion of the Ukrainian name is secondary, e.g. "Krasnodon (official name: Sorokyne)". Since 2019, only 6% of sources have used Sorokyne; 17% since 2023, a substantial increase, but far from being the more common name yet. It may change in the future but right now it looks like the Ukrainian name is not an appropriate title. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that many of the places you mention were just moved to their (new) Ukrainian names without any discussion (typically with a justification "X is located in Ukraine, we must use a Ukrainian name" or similar). Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really good point. I should have done my research on that. Tbh, it probably wouldn't be too painful to just RM all the necessary ones one-by-one; I made a list in my user sandbox of what I think is all settlements at their pre-decommunization names, and there are far less than I had previously assumed.
This seems like a WP:SNOW situation, honestly. If there aren't meaningful supporting votes in the next day or so, I'll withdraw this request and start doing individual RMs. HappyWith (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are precedents for the mass move where articles about places in Ukraine have no COMMONNAME and are renamed according to UAPLACE without any controversy:
There’s no problem with the process of mass moves.  —Michael Z. 20:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you really do not see the difference you should try to explain to yourself why those requests were supported and this one is being opposed. Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s being opposed because some editors want to create an exception to UAPLACE. It’s actually untested because everyone’s been tiptoeing around the controversy. The fact is that a few editors strongly favour using Russian and Soviet-Russian names in Ukraine for various reasons, but I don’t believe there’s any possible rationale for it based on our guidelines and consensus. As an exercise, is it even possible to write a reasonable-sounding rule to that effect with a rationale based on any guideline? I doubt it.
I suggest you call an RFC to add that exception to UAPLACE, try to get broad participation, and then we can rename all of the Russian-occupied places to these names or stop arguing over every Ukrainian place article.
Until then let’s name articles on Ukrainian place names according to the established consensus guidelines. This is the default. It is clearly specified in black and white.  —Michael Z. 20:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like so far most editors who care disagree with this point of view. Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The procedure for titling articles on place names in Ukraine is simple and clear. If there is no COMMONNAME, then follow the naming convention UAPLACE. If editors want to make exceptions to UAPLACE for certain situations resulting from the Russian invasion, then please make a clear proposal with a solid rationale, and call an RFC to update the convention.  —Michael Z. 20:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: If its alright with you, I was thinking of closing the discussion now so individual RMs can be opened for each article. No worries if you'd prefer to keep the discussion open a bit longer but personally think it would be more productive just to open new ones than continue this one. Dan the Animator 05:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. I think specifically Krasnodon/Sorokyne kinda wrecks this proposal. HappyWith (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If that’s it, then strike that one and continue.  —Michael Z. 23:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a thing? I don't know how to do that. HappyWith (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just strike it out and post a note why you’ve modified your request. If anybody’s voted just because of the one, then ask them to consider modifying their vote.  —Michael Z. 00:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I still doubt this RM is going through, as there seem to be broader objections. HappyWith (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the above, I'm guessing I'll keep it open still with the new, slightly smaller list. Also fyi I added in a invisible comment next to Krasnodon/Sorokyne explaining why it's crossed out. @Amakuru, Super Dromaeosaurus, Alaexis, Ymblanter, and Mzajac: Pinging editors who previously voted/commented with Krasnodon/Sorokyne included to see whether there's any change of consensus (and apologies in advance for the bother!). Cheers, Dan the Animator 01:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I went through each of the remaining settlements on Google Scholar (abr. GS) & Google Chrome's search engine (abr. GC) with each name and below's the results I got. Note: with all names, when searching I inputted them in the format: "Name" ukraine (including the quotation marks). In the case of some of them, like Artemivsk for example, Google Scholar/Chrome picked up results pertaining to different cities with similar names (in Artemivsk's example, Artemovsk got picked up as well by the look of it). In any case, hope it helps!
  • Kirovske, Donetsk (GS: 69; GC: 63,400) → Khrestivka (GS: 7; GC: 87,500)
  • Komsomolske (GS: 57; GC: 41,900) → Kalmiuske (GS: 21; GC: 108,000)
  • Artemivsk (GS: 458; GC: 155,000) → Kypuche (GS: 1; GC: 5,980)
  • Chervonohvardiiske (GS: 1; GC: 6,520) → Krynychanske (GS: 2; GC: 566)
  • Chervonopartyzansk (GS: 11; GC: 23,600) → Voznesenivka (GS: 5; GC: 159,000)
  • Kalininskyi (GS: 4; GC: 17,400) → Kundriuche (GS: 0; GC: 1,820)
  • Kirovsk, Luhansk (GS: 719; GC: 427,000) → Holubivka (GS: 19; GC: 112,000)
  • Leninske (GS: 60; GC: 38,400) → Valianivske (GS: 1; GC: 22,500)
  • Petrovske (GS: 51; GC: 34,100) → Petrovo-Krasnosillia (GS: 0; GC: 1,440)
  • Sverdlovsk (GS: 14,900; GC: 863,000) → Dovzhansk (GS: 21; GC: 123,000)
  • Vakhrusheve (GS: 2; GC: 30,700) → Bokovo-Khrustalne (GS: 2; GC: 763)

Cheers, Dan the Animator 02:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bolded the numbers that are larger for each settlement to help with readability. Dan the Animator 02:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, given how inflated some of the numbers above are, I did a few narrower searches and here's what I got:
  • For Artemivsk/Kypuche, if the search term is narrowed to ("NAME" ukraine luhansk oblast), there's 46,400 hits on GC for Artemivsk and 5,190 hits on GC for Kypuche.
  • For Komsomolske/Kalmiuske, if the search term is narrowed to ("NAME" ukraine donetsk oblast), there's 9,230 hits on GC for Komsomolske and 49,500 hits on GC for Kalmiuske.
  • For Chervonopartyzansk/Voznesenivka, if the search term is narrowed to ("NAME" ukraine luhansk oblast), there's 9,760 hits on GC for Chervonopartyzansk and 74,100 hits on GC for Voznesenivka.
  • For Sverdlovsk/Dovzhansk, if the search term is narrowed to ("NAME" ukraine luhansk oblast), there's 44,700 hits on GC for Sverdlovsk and 85,100 hits on GC for Dovzhansk.
  • For Kirovsk/Holubivka, if the search term is narrowed to ("NAME" ukraine luhansk oblast), there's 41,800 hits on GC for Kirovsk and 21,900 hits on GC for Holubivka.
Cheers, Dan the Animator 02:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But don’t these results include data from before the renamings happened? HappyWith (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup good catch, I can do another go with them post-renaming. Dan the Animator 02:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post Re-naming (May 12, 2016-present) stats: (Google Chrome search only)
  • Kirovske, Donetsk (GC: 626) → Khrestivka (GC: 12,300)
  • Komsomolske (GC: 509) → Kalmiuske (GC: 11,600)
  • Artemivsk (GC: 2,830) → Kypuche (GC: 58)
  • Chervonohvardiiske (GC: 8) → Krynychanske (GC: 10)
  • Chervonopartyzansk (GC: 167) → Voznesenivka (GC: 10,800)
  • Kalininskyi (GC: 42) → Kundriuche (GC: 8)
  • Kirovsk, Luhansk (GC: 1,010) → Holubivka (GC: 263)
  • Leninske (GC: 113) → Valianivske (GC: 76)
  • Petrovske (GC: 118) → Petrovo-Krasnosillia (GC: 9)
  • Sverdlovsk (GC: 5,680) → Dovzhansk (GC: 12,400)
  • Vakhrusheve (GC: 124) → Bokovo-Khrustalne (GC: 63)
Cheers, Dan the Animator 03:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend also showing the since 2016 (or 2017) Google Scholar data. According to this comment Dovzhansk would be more common than Sverdlovsk but the opposite is true in Google Scholar by a wide margin. May I also note that Google results vary depending on the country the person is in. For example, I get 37,700 results for "Kirovsk" ukraine luhansk oblast, different from your 41,800. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It also depends on the browser settings. I get 99 rather than 37,700. This is why Google search results are generally unreliable. Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies, see below for my comments:
  • Super Dromaeosaurus: Yup good point, will add in the Google Scholar data into the table above soon. (created new table below) Regarding external factors that may have influenced the search results: the safe search function should be completely off, I'm currently in the U.S. (eastern seaboard), and I did all the searches while logged into Google through an institutional account (which shouldn't have any noticeable impact on the results to my understanding). Not sure if this helps clarify anything but in any case thanks for the suggestion!
  • Ymblanter: Per my above comments, the only setting that isn't set on default is safe search, which I turned off for to collect these stats. Aside from that, the "personal results" setting was also on while I did the searches (this should be on by default I think). There's no other settings by the looks of it that would affect the outcome of the results. Like Super Dromaeosaurus pointed out though, there are some external factors that influence the number of hits which I can't change easily (like search location).
As a general comment, regarding the lists of stats I made above tough, I think the most useful/reliable would probably be the last one (the "Post-Renaming (May 12, 2016-present)") since it narrows the search to results published only after the date of renaming and uses the narrower search term that includes the oblast name. That said, feel free to consider the other lists but like you both pointed out, there will likely be some variation between the number of hits (the variation shouldn't be overwhelming though....Ymblanter, try out some of the other search terms and check your settings too because 99 vs. 37,700/41,800 is a significant difference). Cheers, Dan the Animator 16:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post Re-naming (2016-present) stats: (Google Scholar only)
  • Kirovske, Donetsk (GS: 18) → Khrestivka (GS: 5)
  • Komsomolske (GS: 16) → Kalmiuske (GS: 13)
  • Artemivsk (GS: 138) → Kypuche (GS: 0)
  • Chervonohvardiiske (GS: 1) → Krynychanske (GS: 1)
  • Chervonopartyzansk (GS: 2) → Voznesenivka (GS: 3)
  • Kalininskyi (GS: 0) → Kundriuche (GS: 0)
  • Kirovsk, Luhansk (GS: 16) → Holubivka (GS: 7)
  • Leninske (GS: 9) → Valianivske (GS: 1)
  • Petrovske (GS: 11) → Petrovo-Krasnosillia (GS: 0)
  • Sverdlovsk (GS: 228) → Dovzhansk (GS: 18)
  • Vakhrusheve (GS: 2) → Bokovo-Khrustalne (GS: 2)
Narrow search term used: "NAME" luhansk/donetsk oblast ukraine. Patents excluded, citations included. As noted above, search restricted to results between (and including) 2016 and 2023. Cheers, Dan the Animator 16:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this shows few of these articles are fit for a move. In my opinion Chervonohvardiiske/Krynychanske, Chervonopartyzansk/Voznesenivka, Kalininskyi/Kundriuche and Vakhrusheve/Bokovo-Khrustalne are worth considering. The first four are either villages or small towns with practically no English-language discussion. Thus, I think WP:UAPLACE should take priority in the absence of a common name. I also get more Google search results for the Ukrainian names of the four, except for Vakhrusheve/Bokovo-Khrustalne. So I would move these four.
I incite people to show other views though. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, I do not think UAPLACE should take priority for the areas which have never been under Ukrainian control since they have been renamed. I think they should stay under old (Ukrainian) names until Ukraine has established control over them. Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google Web search has nothing to do with usage in reliable sources, and should not be considered. Google Scholar and Google Book Search are relevant, but in Books the about N results at the top is completely useless: you have to page to the very last page of results and compare the page count. WP:SET has more about searching.
Google Ngram is more useful as it’s actually designed for comparing frequency of usage. But I think every single name above either doesn’t appear in Ngram because it is too rarely used, or appears only because it represents multiple subjects, especially more prominent ones than these.
So search is generally not useful here, because these are all subjects where we cannot reliable determine a single most common name.  —Michael Z. 18:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on the other ones, I agree with your assessment that those settlements are worth moving. I think they fit the premise that has been agreed upon in earlier RMs that if there's no common name, we should move them to the legal names. HappyWith (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the above, I think Chervonohvardiiske & Chervonopartyzansk should probably be moved since there's no indication that their old name is more prevalent than their new name since the renaming (per their Google Chrome and Google Scholar). I agree with Super Dromaeosaurus, I think it would be fair to also consider Kalininskyi & Vakhrusheve since those also don't appear to have a clear common name since the renaming but I'm leaning against moving those two until there's more data in support of greater usage of Kundriuche & Bokovo-Khrustalne. The rest of the pages should probably be kept as-is in my opinion. Regarding UAPLACE, I somewhat agree with Ymblanter (if I'm understanding your point correctly): I agree UAPLACE shouldn't take priority if there's a lack of a commonname but I disagree that it depends on de facto control over the territory; if there's no commonname for a settlement in Kyiv Oblast, for example, it shouldn't be treated any different from a settlement with no commonname in Donetsk Oblast. The RM discussions here shouldn't be a whole lot different from a RM discussion about settlements in Nagorno-Karabakh or China or the Maldives, and UAPLACE should be used more for after the consensus for a commonname is decided. Btw, thanks Michael Z for the info/links: I'll make sure to look at the bottom page count next time I use Google Scholar but regarding their usefulness, I think, even with their flaws, they're still helpful to get a better sense of direction. Cheers, Dan the Animator 18:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter Would you be in support of moving Chervonohvardiiske and Chervonopartyzansk based on the arguments presented? It seems like almost all editors in the discussion support those two, and if we get support we could at least close this mess of a discussion with some productive action. HappyWith (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not support the move. Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it because Ukraine has not held control of the settlements since they were renamed? This is not a policy-based argument. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When there is no COMMONNAME, we do not have policy-based arguments. We have to go with WP:CONSENSUS. Ymblanter (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply not true. There are other policies regarding article titling. HappyWith (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think either way, this discussion has gone down the way of a WP:TRAINWRECK. Hopefully we can get closure soon so editors can start making the individual RMs. HappyWith (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2023 (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.

Requested move 15 November 2023[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kirovske, Donetsk Oblast → Khrestivka – "Khrestivka" is the clear WP:COMMONNAME. Compare Google results:

Kirovske:

  • Web (262 raw results)
  • News (4 raw results)
  • Books (no meaningful results)

Khrestivka:

  • Web (12,100 raw results)
  • News (6 raw results)
  • Books (no meaningful results)

The difference in proportion in the number of raw web results is a gigantic 46x. And this doesn't even take into account that many of the "Kirovske" results are actually false positives and are referring to the unrelated Kirovske, Crimea and Kirovske Raion. The results aren't just garbage data, either - I've gone through both results lists and found that they have a roughly equal ratio of high-quality written sources to low-quality autogenerated stuff, so my "46x" assertion still stands.

One can further observe that in the news results, all three of the sources using "Kirovske" (not counting the Kyiv Independent article which is about the one in Crimea) are from the low-quality source Euromaidan Press, which has had articles that are just transcriptions of videos by Ukrainian YouTube milbloggers. On the other hand, "Khrestivka" is used by high-quality sources like the ISW and international publications.

Khrestivka is also the official legal name used by the Ukrainian government which is overwhelmingly internationally recognized as the legitimate government of Donetsk Oblast. I think overall, this evidence shows that the title should be "Khrestivka". HappyWith (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not sure "Donetsk Oblast" is an appropriate element to be quoted in a Google search for these purposes. In Google Scholar, Khrestivka, which unambiguously refers to this settlement, has seven results ("Khrestivka"), but if we add "Donetsk Oblast", they're reduced to only two ("Khrestivka" "donetsk oblast"). "Donetsk Oblast" would be the most appropriate disambiguatory particle in Wikipedia, but it is not necessarily elsewhere. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the search "kirovske" "donetsk oblast" OR "donbas" OR "donbass", limited to post-2016 papers, I get 18 Google Scholar results. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access all of these papers, but many of them seem to be referring to the Crimean settlement or talking about the Donetsk settlement in a pre-2016 context. HappyWith (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to 16 of them. 7 refer to Kirovske/Khrestivka (Donetsk Oblast), 1 refers to Kirovske/Dianivka (Donetsk Oblast), 6 refer to Kirovske/İslâm Terek (Crimea; one is actually in Turkish [9] and another in Czech [10] and another in Portuguese [11]), 1 refers to Kirovske/Obukhivka (Dnipropetrovsk Oblast) I believe (source). I do not have access to this one [12], likely it was another reference to the Crimean settlement as the book deals with Crimea (so it'd be 7, 4 in English). I have no idea what «WE WILL GIVE OUR SOULS AND BODIES FOR OUR FREEDOM» M Lazarovych - 2018 is. So through my search Kirovske and Khrestivka (now I'm referring to the settlement of this article) have the same amount of results. However some other search might give more results to this Kirovske. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I change "Donetsk Oblast" to simply "Donetsk", the number of Google results increases, but not by enough to make it near the same order of magnitude as Khrestivka.[13] Even if I remove the region disambiguator completely, it only goes up to 2000, which is still far lower than Khrestivka.[14] Not to mention that obviously, both of these add in a giant load of sources that are referring to the Crimean settlement. HappyWith (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Kirovske" -wikipedia gets me 3k-4k results in Google while "Khrestivka" -wikipedia gets me 8k-16k. Today I learned that not only Google results vary according to the country, but that each time that I refresh, the number of results changes (maybe that's what explains the variation of results between users in different countries). Generally I distrust Google results for determining common names, but it does seem to indicate Khrestivka is more common. This case is complex. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that variation too, but it seems as though Khrestivka is consistently much higher than Kirovske even with the variation. HappyWith (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers at the top are bogus too. You have to go to the last page of results and sometimes get numbers orders of magnitude different from the estimates.  —Michael Z. 22:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally can't as Google seems to have had an update that loads by itself new results while scrolling down instead of showing different result pages with ten results. Searching a bit I found this [15]: There's a limit to the number of results Google eventually chooses to display. That number has varied over the years, but currently seems to be around 400*. The number on the last page is the number of results Google has displayed -- it has nothing to do with how many indexed web pages match the search terms. If I've understood correctly (likely not), it would not be too useful if I could anyway. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see the infinite scroll too now, since last time I tried to count results in G Web Search (mainly use Duck Duck Go). I do notice when I search for Kirovske, Google gives me suggestions in the sidebar:
See results about
🔍 Khrestivka / City in Ukraine
🔍 Kirovske / Area: 5.99 km2 / Mayor: Rawicz Eugene
Google is using the name Khrestivka for this settlement (the other is in Crimea).  —Michael Z. 23:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am skeptical that we can meaningfully measure the global COMMONNAME of this obscure and oft-renamed settlement (in just over eight decades, Mannheim, Davydo-Orlivka, Khrestivka, Nova Khrestivka, Kirovske, Khrestivka), whose recent name is shared by more prominent places. (Web results shouldn’t even be considered, as they have nothing to do with reliable sources.) It does looks to be very rarely referred to, and maybe doesn’t have a single most common English name.
The proposed name also has the advantage that it is naturally disambiguated.
But in reliable sources recommended by WP:WIAN:
  • GNS Search[16]: approved name Khrestivka, variant names Kirovske, Kirovskoye, Krestovka.
  • Maps:
    • Google: Khrestivka[17]
    • Apple: Khrestivka[18]
And we can consider WP:UAPLACE, which agrees with the sources above.  —Michael Z. 22:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The natural disambiguation is another good argument. I do think web results are still useful in this case, because you can scroll through them and see far more RS using "Khrestivka" than ones that use "Komsomolske". HappyWith (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it would have WP:CONSISTENCY with other settlements in Ukraine, of course, including the recent precedent-setting moves of other articles about occupied settlements.  —Michael Z. 22:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the argument of natural disambiguation has strength after the move at Buran, Ukraine. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Concision and consistency are the last two of the WP:CRITERIA, but they are something.  —Michael Z. 22:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination and Michael Z. Since Khrestivka is undeniably within the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine, the main title of its English Wikipedia entry should depict its Ukrainian name, rather than its Russian name. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 November 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khrestivka&oldid=1199859138"