text:
Talk:Donetsk Oblast

Russian is NOT Official language in Donetsk Oblast
Sorry, but Russian is NOT Official language in Donetsk Oblast. Neither in any oblast in Ukraine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleg Kikta (talk • contribs) 22:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is officially recognised as regional (de facto official) in Kharkov, Donetsk, Lugansk oblasts and Crimean republic. Also it is the official language of the city of Kharkov, Donetsk, Lugansk, Sevastopol, Yalta and Odessa. --Kuban Cossack 20:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Kuban kazak, you wish you wish you wish. Russian is not Official language in any Ukrainian city beside Crimea. --68.32.136.151 (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, as confirmed on the cities' charter. --Kuban Cossack 13:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the 19.02.2007 decision by Appeals Court of Donetsk oblast the decision by oblast legislature to grant the status of regional language to Russian was ok (prooflink). Has this ruling been repealed? Alæxis¿question? 14:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, by the Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeals. —  Mariah-Yulia  • Talk to me!  17:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Pollution
The ecology section does not have a single mention of pollution.

G. Robert Shiplett 15:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Trains are almost important as cars in Donetsk Oblast
Trains are almost important as cars in Dontsk Oblast. I have been looking at google maps for the region looking for how the towns and cities are interconnected. I notice that in many places, Krasnyi-Lurch for example, the highways do not intersect the city centers. But looking at train stations and train routes, the connections between towns makes more sense.

A railway route map for the region would be useful

Robert.Harker (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Territorial control
, I don't understand why the addition of territorial control is making you revert my edits. Whether the DPR or LPR are not an "official body" doesn't matter. The facts on the ground show that almost half of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts are controlled by a self-proclaimed government other than Ukraine. Neither oblasts are going to be the same since the war broke out, so that is why I thought it would be rather convenient to see which cities are under Ukrainian and DPR control. And I'm sure others would agree with having a chart to see which areas are controlled by whom. If you haven't noticed before, Syria has their own article about cities that are controlled by different forces. All that I'm asking for is one more space in the chart... SkoraPobeda (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why *should* it be included? (and bringing up the Syria topic articles - which are frankly a huge POV mess - doesn't exactly support your case).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All such charts are temporary constructs and Wikipedia is not a current events source. There is no defined border for the Russian-controlled territory and no recognized government that actually has complete control over the area.  If an actual agreement is reached between Kyiv and Moscow over the borders and governance of Russia's invasion zone, then your additions would be appropriate.  In the mean time, they are not.  --Taivo (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Donetsk Oblast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001045114/http://gska2.rada.gov.ua:7777/pls/z7502/A005?rdat1=03.06.2007&rf7571=6942 to http://gska2.rada.gov.ua:7777/pls/z7502/A005?rdat1=03.06.2007&rf7571=6942
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090709062122/http://www.citylife.donetsk.ua:80/ to http://www.citylife.donetsk.ua
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060524112529/http://www.donoda.gov.ua:80/m1/uk/ to http://www.donoda.gov.ua/m1/uk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220151418/http://www.catalogue.biz.ua:80/eng/guides/guide_index/1/6/ to http://www.catalogue.biz.ua/eng/guides/guide_index/1/6/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Donetsk Oblast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150318013353/http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/30513.html to http://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/30513.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001045114/http://gska2.rada.gov.ua:7777/pls/z7502/A005?rdat1=03.06.2007&rf7571=6942 to http://gska2.rada.gov.ua:7777/pls/z7502/A005?rdat1=03.06.2007&rf7571=6942
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.citylife.donetsk.ua/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.donoda.gov.ua/m1/uk/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.catalogue.biz.ua/eng/guides/guide_index/1/6/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Reform in Ukraine in July 2015
nformation with categories out of date Need to create a new category. Lyman Amalgamated Territorial Community was established in 2015, it is the result of the merger of Lyman municipality and Lyman Raion

Now your scheme is Donetsk oblast'- Lyman raion and Lyman municipality

but you need Donetsk oblast'- Lyman Amalgamated Territorial Community (lYMAN ATC) Lyman ATC was established in July 2015. to the administrative territorial unit of Lyman Municipality was attached village Lyman raion.Sources in page Lyman raion--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC) http://static.rada.gov.ua/zakon/new/NEWSAIT/ADM/zmistdon.html 2. 3. Administrative divisions of Donetsk oblast--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of "Template:Largest cities of Donetsk Oblast"
Template:Largest cities of Donetsk Oblast has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cherkasy Oblast which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Citations Needed
I have somewhat reluctantly added 2 Citations Needed beside our statement that the oblast has 74.9% Russian speakers and 24.1% Ukrainian speakers, and has 21% of Ukraine's Muslims, both sets of figures currently supposedly from the 2001 Ukrainian census for the oblast, as retrieved in 2007, a source which seemingly no longer shows these figures, assuming it ever did. Unfortunately I do not have either the time or the inclination to get any further involved in a potentially highly politicized dispute, and will hopefully be playing no further part in it, though the issue may not be entirely trivial, as many of our readers may want to know whether the oblast is really 56% Ukrainian or 75% Russian or a bit of both, given that they and their loved ones seem to face at least a small risk of soon dying in a nuclear holocaust triggered by the ongoing very bloody dispute (with fighting currently seemingly centred around Lyman, in the Donetsk Oblast) over whether this oblast (and 3 other oblasts) should belong to Ukraine or Russia. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2022
Russia - Ukraine 2601:246:5D80:84A0:D9B9:97E3:8265:5EA2 (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

United Nations Recognizes Russia's annexation of four Ukraine regions
The UN General Assembly is supporting a resolution demanding that Russia reverse the annexation of four Ukrainian regions, thus recognizing that those four regions, including Donetsk, have been annexed by Russia.

The main article still states that the annexations are not internationally recognized, and should be updated to reflect the statements made by the UN.

https://twitter.com/zekejmiller/status/1580291074844942336 UNSpecialist (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ Tweets by random people are not reliable sources. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 20:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a random person. This is a White House Correspondent for AP news.
 * Regardless, here is a better and more direct source https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1129492 2600:4040:A405:C500:BC85:18AD:38D6:589E (talk) 15:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ Even the title of the linked story contradicts your interpretation of it: "Ukraine: UN General Assembly demands Russia reverse course on ‘attempted illegal annexation’". ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Donetsk Oblast
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Donetsk Oblast's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ua2021estimate": From Chernivtsi Oblast:  From Kyiv:  From Kharkiv Oblast:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Russian spelling and pronunciation

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * The discussion has been moved to a new section in the bottom, in an attempt to request RFC. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The Russian spelling and pronunciation of the oblast's name should be mentioned in the introduction of the English page, alongside Ukrainian. This wouldn't only make sense in the light of the 2022 Russian annexation of the region, but also because 75% of the population speaks Russian as their native language. This would also be more consistent, as the English article on the Lugansk oblast already mentions the Russian name, after Ukrainian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhansk_Oblast). Schutsheer des Vaderlands (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 * ✅. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I undid your addition. There is MOS:LEADSENTENCE: "Avoid cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information should be placed elsewhere." Also: The article is about the Ukrainian oblast, not about the Russian occupation. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn't exactly "cluttering" by adding one other translation. The translation is also sustained by this source. The source also refers to Donetsk Oblast as a Ukrainian oblast. With 93 percent of the population speaking Russian, I believe it is definitely worth adding it. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BRR, Once discussion has begun, restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive., I think you should self-revert. BTW: According to WP:GS/RUSUKR, the editor who started this discussion more than a year ago, is not allowed to edit the article. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Self reversion has been done. However, I find my point still standing though, given the citation. In addition, a user is allowed to edit the talk page of a contentious article. I went through their contribution history and I have not seen them edit the article directly. Anyways, let's start an RFC, and we can go with the consensus we generate. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

Edit warring about population numbers
Would you please explain here on the talk page why you keep changing population numbers and other things ? Rsk6400 (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Russian spelling and pronunciation (new RFC)
The Russian spelling and pronunciation of the oblast's name should be mentioned in the introduction of the English page, alongside Ukrainian. This wouldn't only make sense in the light of the 2022 Russian annexation of the region, but also because 75% of the population speaks Russian as their native language. This would also be more consistent, as the English article on the Lugansk oblast already mentions the Russian name, after Ukrainian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhansk_Oblast). Schutsheer des Vaderlands (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 * ✅. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I undid your addition. There is MOS:LEADSENTENCE: "Avoid cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information should be placed elsewhere." Also: The article is about the Ukrainian oblast, not about the Russian occupation. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It isn't exactly "cluttering" by adding one other translation. The translation is also sustained by this source. The source also refers to Donetsk Oblast as a Ukrainian oblast. With 93 percent of the population speaking Russian, I believe it is definitely worth adding it. I have reverted your edit. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BRR, Once discussion has begun, restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive., I think you should self-revert. BTW: According to WP:GS/RUSUKR, the editor who started this discussion more than a year ago, is not allowed to edit the article. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Self reversion has been done. However, I find my point still standing though, given the citation. In addition, a user is allowed to edit the talk page of a contentious article. I went through their contribution history and I have not seen them edit the article directly. Anyways, let's start an RFC, and we can go with the consensus we generate. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As the rfc is constantly malfunctioning, I will request a third opinion instead. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: Would both of you accept a compromise of moving both the Ukranian and Russian translations/transliterations to an endnote using efn? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with that. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Shall we continue with the efn, or shall we wait a little more? Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

With no consensus being found, I have started an RFC. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC) RFC halted. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 * @Wikiexplorationandhelping: I think it's a bit premature to start an RfC. I would recommend removing the tag. Pinging @Rsk6400: is my proposed compromise acceptable to you? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok done. Hopefully Rsk6400 could reply. If Rsk6400 does not reply, what should be done? Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If there's no reply within 3-4 days from now (given that Rsk has been inactive for 5 days), I would say make the change to efn and if there's later an objection, I would recommend that Rsk revert and that you two follow BRD. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for the advice. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikiexplorationandhelping, voorts, thanks to both of you, I think you followed the good collaborative spirit of Wikipedians. Yes, I'm OK with the compromise. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅., , let me know if anything should be revised in the leading section. Thank you, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Donetsk Oblast


text:
Talk:Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521221848/http://gska2.rada.gov.ua/pls/z7502/A005?rdat1=09.11.2008&rf7571=13163 to http://gska2.rada.gov.ua/pls/z7502/A005?rdat1=09.11.2008&rf7571=13163
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315164829/http://stat.if.ukrtel.net/EX_IN/DS1.HTM to http://stat.if.ukrtel.net/EX_IN/DS1.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100116131839/http://www.davniyhalych.if.ua/ to http://www.davniyhalych.if.ua/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110702235540/http://whp057.narod.ru/iv-fra.htm to http://whp057.narod.ru/iv-fra.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110809063723/http://sheshory.ua/index.html to http://sheshory.ua/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001062059/http://gska2.rada.gov.ua:7777/pls/z7502/A005?rdat1=04.06.2007&rf7571=13163 to http://gska2.rada.gov.ua:7777/pls/z7502/A005?rdat1=04.06.2007&rf7571=13163

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Jewish history
There is no mention in the history of the very large Jewish population exterminated in WWIi. Thus was a center of Jewish life in Europe. 38.100.141.178 (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cherkasy Oblast which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast


text:
Talk:Kharkiv Oblast

Borova link
People, please, HELP ME! When I push Borova in the list of cities of our Oblast, I get to the article about foreign city. Who can correct it? We must create the article about ukrainian town!!--Максим Коршунов (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now when you go to Borova it will be a disambiguation page. You can write about the Ukrainian town at Borova (Kharkiv Oblast). Thanks, Ostap 20:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kharkiv Oblast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140223045433/http://www.ukrbandy.org.ua/about_en.html to http://ukrbandy.org.ua/about_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Re-organisation of table of raions needed to reflect the 2020 Reforms
This article requires re-writing to reflect the new structure of raions and hromadas which in 2020 replaced the former more complex structure that existed from Soviet times. I don't mind if the former units are tabulated somewhere, but the article should contain and tabulate details of the areas and populations of the current administrative divisions. Note in particular that there are no longer any independent cities of oblast importance; all have now been restructured within the new raions. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cherkasy Oblast which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kharkiv Oblast


text:
Talk:Kherson Oblast

Irredentist POV pushing with maps
In regard to this edit and related ones. No. Crimea is "disputed" in the sense that Russia claims it. But Crimea is still internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, like it or not. If anything, the UN condemned the Russian occupation of Crimea. Until that changes, it's POV pushing to claim that Crimea is "disputed", especially in an infobox where it's impossible to provide context. If you want to explain the details behind the occupation in text, that would work, but this article isn't the place for it.

It makes some sense to have a map which marks Crimea differently in main articles, such as Crimea, Ukraine and Russia. But to spread that to every single Ukraine-related article is just irredentist and nationalistic POV territory marking. It's disruptive and tendentious. This supposed "consensus" that the edit summary refers to was relevant only to the main articles; Crimea, Ukraine and Russia. Territory marking on all these other articles is just obnoxious. Stop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 * It is ridiculous to say that calling Crimea a disputed region is POV pushing. The whole point of calling it a disputed region is for NPOV as it is disputed between Ukraine and Russia, which both claim it as part of their own territory. Russia doesn't just "occupy" the region, it effectively administers it as part of its own territory. Not the entire international community recognizes it as a part of Ukraine, although most of it does. The UN resolution was not unanimous, there is still a small number of nations recognizing it as a part of Russia. The maps don't depict Crimea as an integral part of Russia and neither do they depict it as an integral part of Ukraine, because it is a disputed region between the two governments and the only NPOV thing to do is to depict it as such. --Leftcry (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, the international community, as represented by the UN does recognize Crimea as part of Ukraine. There's a couple of Russia's puppet states that don't. So what? It's a fringe. That's exactly why this is POV - it's putting the views of a fringe on the same footing as mainstream view. It IS an integral part of Ukraine. Please stop it with the nationalist edits with these junkety POV maps.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The UN doesn't own the entire international community and although most countries are a part of the UN that doesn't mean that they don't have a right to their own sovereign decision. It's not just "a couple of Russia's puppet states", it's completely independent and recognized sovereign governments such as Afghanistan, Venezuela, Nicaragua and some others. Saying that the entire international community recognizes Crimea as Ukraine is simply like saying those sovereign states aren't a part of the international community. The UN, as an organization, may recognize Crimea as Ukraine but it doesn't speak for each country's own recognition. Wikipedia does not treat Crimea as an integral part of Ukraine and neither does it treat it as an integral part of Russia as either of those stances are POV pushing which is why it is treated as a disputed region for NPOV. You may think of it as an integral part of Ukraine, but that is your personal opinion and you should not POV push and remove NPOV maps per WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Also stop claiming I am the one making nationalist edits by showing Crimea as a disputed region as you are the one who is trying to edit against NPOV by showing a disputed region as an integral part of a country. Also don't assume that just because I reverted one of your edits on a different page that I did so for revenge. I did so because I thought that your edits on that page were completely dubious, however that's a different discussion. --Leftcry (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 * You tell in edit summary here that "There was a consensus long ago, right after its annexation by Russia, that Crimea will be depicted as a disputed region on maps and articles." Could you please provide any link to discussion which resulted in WP:Consensus as you tell? My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There were a number of discussions regarding Crimea and maps that took place mainly on Talk:Ukraine, so there isn't just a single one that I can link here as there are more than one, however the final consensus reached was to treat Crimea as a disputed territory on Wikipedia as that is NPOV. You are free to look into the archives and read those discussions which took place right after Crimea's annexation. I myself did not participate in them as I was not very active on Wikipedia at the time, however I believe User:Iryna Harpy was one of the people who did participate, so maybe she can help you find the most relevant discussions. --Leftcry (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You said there was a discussion with consensus about this, but you can not provide any links to discussion(s) supporting your statement. If this is the case, I should assume there was no in fact such consensus and possibly revert your edits about this. My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you even read my reply? I just said there were a number of discussions not just a single one, so linking just one would not show the complete situation. Then I told you that User:Iryna Harpy was one of the people who participated in those discussions, so she can help with finding the most relevant one of those, however I'm sure that if you want to understand the entire situation you would have to read quite a few of them. They are all located in the archives of Talk:Ukraine, just go look for yourself. --Leftcry (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can attest to the lengthy RfCs regarding the use of a map depicting facts on the ground on the Ukraine article. While there was much in the way of dispute as to WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV, etc., the general consensus is that Crimea is a disputed territory, therefore denial of well publicised public knowledge is POV. Crosshatch depictions of disputed territory is the norm, therefore I would agree with Leftcry that it is a realistic manner in which to treat all of the regional maps depicting Ukraine.

Rather than turn this into an ongoing bone of contention, I would invite, , , , , , , , , and to comment if they're interested (and prepared to do so, naturally). As you can see, I've asked a mixture of neutral and interest parties to toss in their 2¢ worth. If we can't sort it out here following policy and guidelines, perhaps the issue should be put to the community via an RfC. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's obvious the ownership of Crimea is disputed. Russia occupies and administers it, Ukraine wants it back. The U.N. is, as usual, toothless in the matter - it cannot change reality and say no, there's no dispute. Maps showing the states of Ukraine should indicate the territory is disputed. --Neil N  talk to me 00:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that in articles specifically about the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, or the few top level articles such as Ukraine and Crimea, it makes sense to depict Crimea as disputed. But going through and changing every single map of Ukraine in fairly minor articles such as this one is just tendentious POV pushing and territory marking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors should not pick and choose which articles have maps which show it as disputed (or not). It should be consistent in all articles. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should, and I fixed it. I did not ask anyone to discuss. That was a very simple question, specifically to Leftcry. If he tells something, I thought he could support his words by a link to a relevant discussion with alleged consensus. So far no one provided a single link to any discussion with consensus about this. That's fine, I just wanted to be sure. My very best wishes (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Everyone here except for you and Volunteer Marek said that the maps should show Crimea as disputed and what Ism schism meant is that these maps should be consistent with the ones on the main articles. You didn't "fix" anything, you did the complete opposite and started editing against consensus. For the third time, if you want to see the many discussions regarding Crimea and maps which took place after Crimea's annexation then go to Talk:Ukraine and look through its archives. There were many discussions and linking just one would not show the entire situation so I strongly encourage you to go there and look through all of them if you really do want to be sure. --Leftcry (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion at either Russia or Ukraine that only concerned what shade of green to paint Crimea in those two specific maps. It was probably extended to Crimea as well, but I wasn't involved in that discussion.  The consensus covered only the maps at those articles and it was never agreed to expand the consensus to every single map in Wikipedia that shows Crimea.  Until the war is over and a final settlement on Crimea has been agreed to, Crimea should be marked as Ukrainian and the Russian invasion and occupation ignored.  --Taivo (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The maps showing Crimea as disputed were there for quite a while now, the replacement of those maps with the ones showing Crimea as integrally Ukrainian is recent. I do completely agree with Ism schism in the sense that it is completely inconstant to show Crimea as a disputed region on one article and show it as a complete integral part of Ukraine on the others. I also agree with Iryna Harpy and NeilN that it is obvious that Crimea has disputed status and that it should be depicted as such in maps, as well as that doing otherwise is POV pushing. --Leftcry (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no difference between showing occupied Crimea as part of Ukraine and showing occupied South Ossetia and Abkhazia as part of Georgia or occupied Transnistria as part of Moldova. Until a final peace settlement officially changes the borders, invaded and occupied territory is still shown as an integral part of the nation that they legally belong to.  --Taivo (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems to mean that Ukraine admits Crimea to be part of the Russian Fed. I don't assess how likely this could be happening but let me give my best example: China (PRC) and Taiwan (RoC) are currently in a rather peaceful relationship, but China never stops claiming Taiwan to be part of its territories and all maps in Wikimedia depicts Taiwan as an independent sovereign from China. Your requirement of a "final peaceful settlement" is untenable. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 * @Taivo: Wikipedia is ever-changing in order to keep itself updated to the current state of our knowledge. Unless the article only covers specific historical event (which "Kherson Oblast" is clearly not), any article about entity still exists in modern day should be updated accordingly to reflect the current state of event regardless of its role in the said conflict (Crimea crisis). Ironically about your "until the war is over and a final settlement" statement, the so-called war in Crimea is pretty much settled and there is no signs its de facto annexation by Russia would be changed or even reverted in any foreseeable future. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @Sameboat: Please show me the treaty by which Ukraine has ceded ownership of Crimea to Russia and/or the UN resolution which recognizes Russian seizure and incorporation of Crimea.  Until you can, then the war is certainly not over.  Just because there is no active fighting for Ukraine to retake its property, doesn't mean that the issue has been "settled".  You cannot tell the future.  Wikipedia does not "recognize" the independence of Transnistria or Abkhazia or South Ossetia in its administrative division maps of Moldova or Georgia.  There is no reason to treat Ukraine any differently.  Until Ukraine officially cedes Crimea to Russia, it is still legally a part of Ukraine.  --Taivo (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Those territories are break-away regions which is slightly different from the situation in Crimea. Something more relatable is Golan Heights. Syria never officially ceded the territory to Israel however it has no control to the region and is depicted the same way as Crimea is on those maps. Golan Heights is an occupied region and is depicted that way, Crimea is more than just an occupied region as Russia also administers it, so it is also disputed and should also be depicted as such on maps. --Leftcry (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What makes Crimea virtually identical to Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia is that it is precisely the same process and the same invader in each case--Russian "hybrid war". If it is the same antagonist and the same process in each case, then the situations in Moldova, Ukraine, and Georgia should be treated the same throughout. Let the situation surrounding Israel be treated the way that those editors choose since there are differences. But surrounding Russia we have the same invader (Russia), the same tactics (hybrid war), the same victims (former Soviet states), and the same result (frozen war) in each case. Therefore they should all be treated the same--without marking "disputes" on the administrative division maps, light green on the country maps. --Taivo (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact that those territories aren't disputed between two UN members, Crimea is. That's what makes it different from the cases with break-away regions and similar to the case with Golan Heights. Crimea is already depicted as a disputed region on most articles relating to Crimea and maps on the main articles. It is completely redundant to show it as a disputed region there, but not do that here as that is not consistent. --Leftcry (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * TBH, I'm not knowledgable about the current states or news about Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. But depicting Crimea as an disputed territory from Ukraine in all modern maps comply with our NPOV policy perfectly. We don't need to predict how the "conflict without active fighting" will turn out. Any depiction of "Crimea as an undisputed Ukrainian territory" is either historical (inaccurate to the present state) or prediction, which constitutes WP:CRYSTAL. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Leftcry. It is completely consistent with the way that Abkhazia and South Ossetia are treated at Georgia (in light green), but not marked on the administrative division maps.  Crimea is no different than these other regions in any sense other than Russia has overtly claimed the territory after it "broke away".  You're simply not seeing the big picture here in your attempts to push this POV edit on the administrative maps.  The way we treat Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Crimea, and the Donbass should be identical across the board because they are all part of a larger process of post-Soviet Russian aggression and expansion.
 * No, Sameboat. And if you are not knowledgeable about Moldova or Georgia and Russian occupation of parts of those states, then you won't understand the situation of Crimea.  This situation is no different than trying to accurately mark those areas on a map that have been invaded in the middle of the war.  We do not mark these other areas of Russian aggression and occupation in Moldova or Georgia.  We should treat Ukraine no differently while it is in the middle of a war.  --Taivo (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The conflict in Crimea ended almost a year ago and is now in a state of territorial dispute. There is no war including Crimea as of right now. The current war in Ukraine is in the Donbass not Crimea. --Leftcry (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "The conflict in Crimea ended almost a year ago"? Are you actually of the notion that the war in Crimea is separate from the war in Donbass?  There is only one war--Ukraine versus Russia.  Just because one front is not active at this time doesn't mean that the war is over.  If "the war is over", please show me the treaty by which Ukraine ceded Crimea to Russia or the UN resolution by which the world recognized the "end of the war in Crimea".  Indeed, except for a dozen or so Russian allies or anti-Western dictatorships, every other country of the world still overtly recognizes the Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea.  That's hardly a finished war.  --Taivo (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

, stop changing maps before this discussion is over. You're pushing your POV ignoring the fact that half of the users who commented on this did not agree with this decision. Your disruptive change of maps on articles of Oblasts of Ukraine before a consensus is even reached is simply POV pushing. --Leftcry (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are going to show the parts of Ukraine claimed by neighboroughing countries, then a neutral POV approach would be to show all of them, not just the ones you approve of. I suggest blue hatching for parts that Russia claims, red hatching for parts claimed by Poland, and yellow hatching for parts claimed by Romania.  With respect of Polish claims - they vary - suggest thick hatching for the part to the pre-1939 frontier and thin hatching for the pre-Khmelnytsky Uprising frontier.  Alternatively we could just omit all the claims from the map as they are not really needed for the purpose the map is being used for.--  Toddy1 (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 * {| class="wikitable"

!|No Hatching !|Hatching
 * -valign=top
 * -valign=top
 * Kherson_in_Ukraine.svg
 * Kherson in Ukraine (claims hatched).svg
 * }

 * By the way, the current hatching is a complete failure. You cannot see it on my computer from the normal article page.--  Toddy1 (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (@Toddy. The hatching was previously removed from the map on this article by User:My very best wishes.  --Taivo (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC))
 * It shows in the article history. To make it easier for people to see how the attempt at hatching was a failure, I have inserted the images above at about the same scale as in the infobox.--  Toddy1 (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Although not expressed in a particularly helpful way, Toddy1 is correct to note that there are dozens of disputed territories globally, which are not typically displayed on maps. What's distinct in the Crimea case is that it is a situation where the de facto governance of Crimea - as part of Russia - is different from the the situation recognized by the majority of UN states. I can't think of many other situations where this is the case. Comparions to Abkazhia, Transnistria etc are less helpful. While undoubtedly supported by Russia, none of these claim to be an integral part of Russian territory - they claim to be independent states. What's clear? What's clear is that Crimea is a disputed territory. That's not just about UN recongition - dozens of sources could tell us this. I think I like its entry under the National Geogaphic article title 6 of the World's Most Worrisome Disputed Territories as about as unequivocal a statement on this as we can get! However, what's also important is that we remember that this and other geographical articles are not about Crimea. My view is that the colour of Crimea should not, therefore, be an important or distinguishing feature on a map which is, ultimately, not about Crimea. Furthermore, we shouldn't pretend that maps are an easy or neutral tool to straightforwadly represent the world - they're not, they are the products of a series of difficult representational decisions (such as this). I wonder if depictions of Kosovo on maps of Serbian cities may offer a compromise? As this file shows, File:Belgrade in Serbia and Europe.png, Kosovo is marked differently via a dashed line, but the distinction is much more subtle than changes in shading. It would, I think, be disingenuous to mark Crimea as part of Ukraine as if it were governed and controlled in the same way as Kiev. But we should not be letting this dominate maps which do not concern this topic either. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's common Wikipedia practice to mark disputed territories, even in infobox maps. Check the maps at Gansu or Andhra Pradesh. I see no reason to treat Crimea differently.Anonimu (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @Anoimu - Yes, I agree, that's what I said. But equally we don't show all territory disputes, so we need to judge what to do in each individual case. The point that I was making is that perhaps by doing so in a more subtle way on non-Crimea related articles, we avoid the situation where a tangential topic hijacks an article. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "It would, I think, be disingenuous to mark Crimea as part of Ukraine as if it were governed and controlled in the same way as Kiev". However, that is precisely what we do with the other territories that Russia has launched a hybrid war against and which are not governed and controlled by the central government.  Again, drawing parallels to Israel and India are not helpful because these situations are not parallel.  It is always virtually impossible to properly evaluate some claims because parallels to other parts of the world are difficult--there are different actors, political factors, realities on the ground, etc.  But in the case of Crimea there are precise parallels to Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia: 1) The antagonist is the same in all these cases--Russia; 2) The motivation is the same in all these cases--putin's desire to reunite the old Soviet empire under Kremlin control; 3) The victim is the same in all these cases--former Soviet republics; 4) The method is the same in all these cases--putin's so-called "hybrid war"; 5) The "stabilized" outcome is the same in all these cases--a "frozen war" where part of the victim's territory is out of the central government's control and under the control of the Kremlin through Russian occupation forces or a Russian-installed government.  These regions are all expressions of the same thing.  So they should all be treated the same.  Super Nintendo has a very useful point that this shading is pointless when used in articles that have nothing to do with Crimea.  Finally, Crimea is still part of a "hot war", so to mark it on the ground as if its disposition has already been decided is POV pushing.  With Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, the conflict has truly become frozen.  But with the war between Russia and Ukraine there is no "status quo" to mark--there is still active fighting between the invaders and the defenders so recognizing any part of the invaded territory as "disputed" without recognizing that it is part of a whole is to fool our readers into thinking that some subset of the conflict is separate from the entire conflict.  --Taivo (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @Taivo, You're twisting and cherry picking claims here. There are two simple questions here. The first is: Is Crimea disputed? The answer here is clearly 'yes'. The second question, is whether or how we should represent this. This is a more complex question, but my overall feeling is that however we do it, it is more 'true to the world' to represent it somehow. What I'm suggesting, is that how we do this should be subtle, in order to not give WP:UNDUE prominence to this issue. But if we had to go with one or the other, I'd go with hatching to be honest. I repeat - comparisons to those other cases are not particularly helpful, both because WP:OTHERSTUFF is not great arguing and because the situations are, legally, very different (even if the military practices have a number of similarities). Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Parallels with India/Pakistan, India/China, Israel/Palestine, Israel/Syria, Egypt/Sudan are perfectly fine: unlike Abkhazia, Transnistria et al., which are controlled by unrecognized governments, Crimea is controlled by a universally recognized state, i.e Russia. And is not just a local border dispute that we could ignore at the present map scale.Anonimu (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is primarily useful when talking about unrelated or only marginally related issues. In this case Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Crimea are separate instances of a single activity--Russian aggression on its former Soviet neighbors in order to destabilize their governments and prevent their integration into Western economic and defense structures.  This is absolutely not "other stuff", it is the "same stuff".  And Anonimu you cannot have your cake and eat it, too.  The annexation of Crimea is unrecognized by the international community as is the occupation and "independence" of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria.  You want to emphasize the unrecognition in these latter cases to keep from marking the "dispute" in Moldova and Georgia, but ignore the nonrecognition in marking the "dispute" in Ukraine.  You can't have both.  They are the same thing--areas where Russian aggression has wrested control of regions from the legitimate governments.  You are simply ignoring the big picture in order to push a POV narrative that Crimea is somehow different because Russian aggression was more overt in Crimea's case.  The result is identical--Russian control of the government (whether a Russian "separatist" government or a Russian "provincial" government).  This is not like Israel or India; it's not dissimilar to Georgia and Moldova.  It is different from Israel and India and it is identical to Georgia and Moldova.  --Taivo (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's not go into politicking. The difference is as simple as that: a resident of Crimea/Jammu&Kashmir/Arunachal Pradesh/West Bank/Golan heights can use the passport issued by the de facto government in order to go abroad almost everywhere, a resident of Transnistria, Abkhazia or South Ossetia cannot. None of the borders in Jammu&Kashmir, Arunachal Pradesh, West Bank and the Golan heights are officially "recognized" by the international community; even more, they are explicitly considered occupied territories in the case of the latter two. If you want something like Transnistria, Abkhazia and S. Ossetia you have to look at the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics. But nobody is requesting that these two be marked on the map...Anonimu (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Travel permits" are irrelevant to this issue. You also ignore the simple fact that Crimea and Donbass are not separate issues, but one and the same war--all tied in together with Russia's aggression against Ukraine.  It's one thing to try to lump apples and oranges together (Crimea and the Golan Heights), it's quite another when you refuse to lump apples and apples together (Crimea and Abkhazia).  --Taivo (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This debate is getting old. I suggest we move to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents because Taivo clearly does not want to give in. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Giving in"? Seriously?  What happened to assuming good faith?  Instead of ANI, don't you think a request for comment at an appropriate Talk Page is more appropriate?  And I am not the only editor who has expressed displeasure with discoloring Crimea on these administrative division maps--I'm just the only one making most of the arguments against it right now.  With a proper RfC you'd have a much better measure of how many editors do or do not agree with your POV.  --Taivo (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 * One could just as easily argue that Crimea should be shown as a Russian, rather than a disputed territory. But here is my point: if anyone feels strongly about it (I do not), they should properly start an WP:RfC and wait for official closing by an uninvolved admin. End of story. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree about the RfC, but this is not the appropriate page for it. It should be at a "crossroads" page--where more editors are likely to wander by.  Perhaps at Oblasts of Ukraine?  --Taivo (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Entirely agree we're in the wrong place. I only looked here due to a mention on my Talk Page. As for the substance at hand, I figure Crimea has been stolen.  Maps based on legitimacy are pleasant, but Wikipedia is more about reality.  For that matter, what states do in international politics is also about the reality of power.  What they say, well, that's often about legitimacy, but not very relevant here.  Legitimacy can be discussed in the relevant articles about Crimea and its sneaky conquest, or its noble liberation as the other side would prefer to say, but such questions don't belong in the map of every nearby Oblast or other administrative territory.  Jim.henderson (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking again, I see that I didn't address the map question directly. Yes, Crimea should get another color, because its status is ambiguous, as the conquering state controls it de facto but with only small international recognition of that facto.  Preferably, the color should differ more obviously from either of the country colors.  Jim.henderson (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My position also (as noted above). --Neil N  talk to me 21:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem, as I have noted above, is that Crimea not an isolated event. It is part of a broader process involving 1) Russia, 2) former Soviet Republics, 3) hybrid war, 4) occupation of districts without international recognition, and 5) the creation of frozen conflicts which prevent the former Soviet republics from participating in European economic or defense organizations.  In addition, Crimea is still part of a hot war and its status is not fixed either by treaty or by long-term status quo.  Since we do not mark Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia differently in administrative division maps of Moldova and Georgia, then Crimea, which is part of the same set of realities, should be similarly not marked.  --Taivo (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

So is there going to be an RfC posted because so far there is still no final consensus. Most people on this discussions agreed with the maps which depict Crimea as a disputed region however they have been unilaterally changed to the ones which depict Crimea as an integral part of Ukraine by Taivo. This issue is still not resolved. --Leftcry (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The maps of Ukraine are identical in format to the maps of Georgia and Moldova since they are all the same process of internationally unrecognized Russian aggression and invasion. --Taivo (talk) 04:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The consensus appears pretty clear, with Taivo being the only one strongly opposing the change. Of course, without a RfC this consensus is pretty much unenforceable. If you want to go ahead with all that bureaucratic stuff, I'll restate my case; however, I'm afraid that, considering the subject, the RfC would attract a lot of commenters with strong opinions and would only confirm th status quo..Anonimu (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "The consensus appears pretty clear" is not entirely accurate. If you read back through all the comments from the beginning, there are more editors opposing shading than just me.  I wasn't even among the first to post my objections.  I'm just the only one who kept posting.  --Taivo (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The maps of Georgia and Moldova never had a consensus. The maps used on those articles are older, there are new maps marking the break-away regions as disputed by shading there was just never a discussion held regarding changing maps on those articles. Also, as I said many time before, the situation in Crimea differs greatly from those regions. It's a complete different story when there is a territory disputed between two recognized UN members. Such regions have always been shown as disputed on Wikipedia. May I also add that the location map of Ukraine used on Wikipedia depicts Crimea as disputed. There is also a newer version of that map which includes the same style shading as on the maps of the Ukrainian Oblasts. --Leftcry (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should make assumptions about what the outcome of an RfC would be, . I've been meaning to get back to this and start an RfC on the Oblasts of Ukraine talk page (as suggested by Taivo). The decision ought to be an across the board decision rather than a page by page decision. Unfortunately, I've been caught up in a swathe of discussions and didn't strike when the iron was hot. Personally, I haven't changed my position as to Crimea being differentiated in some way on oblasts maps. If someone else wishes to start the RfC, I'm happy to restate my arguments. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cherkasy Oblast which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Not the whole region
Most of the region is under Russia's control. Not the whole region. Simply not true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kherson_military%E2%80%93civilian_administration 82.15.56.134 (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This article will not be moved
I am expecting some people to come up with the idea of renaming this article to Kherson Oblast (Ukraine) now that we have Kherson Oblast (russia). Think twice. The vast, huge majority of English sources still refer to the Ukrainian administrative unit when referring to the name "Kherson Oblast". Such a move would only serve to create a false balance between Ukraine and russia, unwarranted due to russia's illegal and violent annexation of the region, which I believe would look more justified here in Wikipedia with such a move. Super  Ψ   Dro  08:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Capital of Kherson oblast
Kherson (de jure) Novovorontsovka (de facto) Qexypnos (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit request
In the History>Russian Invasion secttion please change "On 27 July 2022 the Ukrainian army destroyed the Antonovsky Bridge, as part of its wider campaign to isolate the Russian 49th Combined Arms Army on the right bank of the Dnipro river. On 31 August it was reported that the defenders of the ill-gotten Kherson territory were the 49CAA and what was left of the 35CAA." to "On 27 July 2022 the Ukrainian army destroyed the Antonovsky Bridge, as part of its wider campaign to isolate the Russian 49th Combined Arms Army on the right bank of the Dnipro river. Elements of the Russian 35th Combined Arms Army later reinforced Kherson.", leaving the sources there. The current version is not neutral or enciclopediac. Dakane2 (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2024
Add the romanization for Russian name ~Fuffi-Marie~ (go talk) 13:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Star action  ( talk  |  contribs ) 05:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kherson Oblast


text:
Talk:Khmelnytskyi Oblast

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cherkasy Oblast which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Khmelnytskyi Oblast


text:
Talk:Kyiv Oblast

Suggested move
"Kyiv Oblast" is the official transliteration of a Ukrainian province name. I suggest a move per this policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Ukrainian_names. Here is Ukrainian President's webpage with the official translation of Ukraine's Constitution, which clearly mentions "Kyiv Oblast": http://www.president.gov.ua/en/content/p_10309_e.html. Please note that for an average English speaker the expression "Kiev Oblast" is basically unfamiliar. There is no substantial reason to modify "Kyiv Oblast" from its official transliteration.--Andrew Alexander 02:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC) нские Сумерки:                Заход Солнца: 17:00 - 04.02.2024                    17:00 - 04.02.2024                   17:00 - 18.02.2024 18:00 - 15.02.2024                     18:00 - 18.02.2024                   18:00 - 21.02.2024 19:00 - 18.02.2024                     19:00 - 03.03.2024                   19:00 - 03.03.2024 20:00 - 03.03.2024                     20:00 - 10.03.2024                   20:00 - 17.03.2024 21:00 - 17.03.2024                     21:00 - 17.03.2024                   21:00 - 31.03.2024 22:00 - 25.03.2024                     22:00 - 18.04.2024                   22:00 - 11.05.2024 23:00 - 28.04.2024                     23:00 - 27.05.2024 24:00 - 30.05.2024.

 * oppose. The page the user cites speaks only about the transliteration rules. That is we have to have a system that would choose between Mykolayiv, Mykolaiv or Mykolajiv. The primary rule, underlying the ones derived from it is here Naming conventions (use English). Quote from there reads: If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works.  Based on this, it has been decided to use Kiev long time ago and until the usage in the media between Kiev and Kyiv at least levels out. Besides, Britannica has a separate article for the oblast itself, called Kiev oblast --Irpen 02:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 * support Kyiv Oblast is neither of the following: "a person, country, town, movie or book". It's a name of the province in Ukraine. I don't understand why Wikipedia policies have to be ignored in this case.--Andrew Alexander 02:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Not until "Kiev" is moved to "Kyiv", and that's not happening any time soon.  The oblast, after all, is named after the city.  I do not see a compelling reason to use different spellings.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 03:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. Logically, the oblast is not just an "area around city of K__v". It is an officially established administrative entity of independent (and, legally, solely Ukrainophonic) state. Respectively, there are official acts regulating the existence of the oblast, namely the Constitution of Ukraine and corresponding laws of Ukraine. Undoubtfully, these documents are layed in Ukrainian and the oblast is called Kyivs'ka there. For a comparative example, St.Petersburg is a center of the Leningrad Oblast (not St.Petersburg oblast). Ukrained 17:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose. It is nonsense to have Kiev and Kyiv Oblast simultaneously. --Ghirlandajo 17:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose for same reasons given above. Either have Kyiv and Kyiv Oblast, or Kiev and Kiev Oblast, but it makes no sense to have two different namings, it can get very confusing. Besides Kiev is the normal english version. Gryffindor  18:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose This proposal is made on the basis of a false statement:  The official transliteration is either (full) Kyivs’ka oblast’, or (simplified) Kyivska oblast.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-14 06:58 Z

 * Oppose. I agree with Gryffindor. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Support. Oblast is not the city. And if you look at the search results on internet or in books, you see clearly that it always been Kyiv Oblast. Most of them who opposes this rename are russians, and that explains why they oppose. They just trying to rewrite the history and everything else as usual. Its just sad. 09:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments
Let's not overload voting section and place comments here. It seems to me from what I read in the readers' comments, we can rephrase the problem as follows. What is the source of the term, so to speak. Is it just an oblast around Київ or this is a unit on its own with its name totally independent of its capital. I can see good arguments for both versions (please do not repeat them, they are said already above). Please note, however, that if we proceed from the assumption that "Київська область" is a name on its own and should be treated independently of the city name Київ, we should base the article on the Ukrainian word Київська and not Київ. As such, the name "Kyiv Oblast" relates to neither IMO.

Now, what the English translation of the Ukrainian constitution is using is not a rule set in stone because it is just that, a translation. There is an absolute clarity only what the Ukrainian name is, which is "Київська область". That the best translation for encyclopedia is Kyivs'ka Oblast or Kyiv Oblast or Kiev Oblast does not follow from that directly. What matter for us is our naming conventions, their interpretation (since they are not crystal clear), and the so-called "common law", that is established traditions in WP and other encyclopedia. That Britannica call the subject's article "Kiev Oblast" should also be taken into account. --Irpen 22:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Instead of making wild guesses of what the name should be, why not read the policy of Wikipedia? Here, it says For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc.. Is official translation of Ukraine's Constitution given on the President web site part of "Ukrainian National system"? Even if we take the first rule of that policy, the province still needs to be called "Kyiv Oblast" due its frequency on the Internet. The rule doesn't say that the name has to copy something from Britannica. It just says "conventional spelling". It is. 15 times over "Kiev Oblast".--Andrew Alexander 01:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I already explained to you that the piece you quote is only for transliteration rules. The primary policy I quoted too. Kyiv Oblast makes less sence than Kyivs'ka Oblast. We do not have to translate the same way as the guy who translated the constitution. The original constitution is in Ukrainian and not in English. The legislature only voted for a Ukrainian text. I don't know what "official translation" means and even if there is one so called, it doesn't mean much. Official translation of Київ is Kyiv according to a Ukrainian government. However, the law applies only to the UA gov publications. English language not only isn't regulated by Ukrainian legislature, it is not regulated at all. At wiki, we only have conventions and our goal here is to decide which name better suites our convention. --Irpen 01:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you misuse Wikipedia rules. The rule does not say anything about transliteration, you imply it to say it, but it doesn't. Another big misuse is to try to apply Wikipedia to set trends and conventions. Wikipedia has to reflect conventions. How many times have you used Google to pound in the point regarding Kiev? Now please, apply the same point. Oh yes, vain hopes...--Andrew Alexander 02:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * While supporting the suggested move, I would say we should set conventions in the cases of countries poorly represented in English-speaking world. And the convention must be either Kyiv Oblast (for the reasons I stated above) or, what I discovered in the history of the oblast pages, Kyivska Oblast. Ukrained

 * Please also have a look at WikiProject Ukrainian subdivisions and its talk page, where we worked out the conventions for naming Ukrainian oblasts in English. Note that the Ukrainian name is present in the lead paragraph "Київська область, Kyivs’ka oblast’ or Київщина, Kyivshchyna".  —Michael Z. 2005-12-14 19:50 Z
 * Second that. When at its talk, make sure you rad the discussion starting from "How the city name Днiпропетровськ is spelled in English" and to the end of the page. Yes, make sure you read all of it to the end. --Irpen 20:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I am kind of not surprized that Andrew Alexander assumes bad faith of anyone who disagrees with him. Go read the rules yourself first. As to google, I agree that it is an important factor. But it is not a one single factor to decide. If you remember what I said earlier, there are three factors to consider for a modern term : Google, other encyclopedias and Major papers. "Other encyclopedia" is shown above. I just checked major papers. Oblast is obscure for them (4 counts all with Kiev BTW) but they use "region" or "province" to denote not just a generic area, but exactly an oblast. Here we go: "Kyiv region" OR "Kyiv province" - zero counts, "Kiev Region" + "Kiev Province"  - 11 counts. Not much but not zero.

 * One second. What does "Kiev Region" + "Kiev Province" have to do with the name of this article? This is silly. To support a Russian version of the name, you claim that that English versions are wide spread.;) --Andrew Alexander 22:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the list:

 * The Herald (Glasgow), March 18, 1996,
 * The Guardian (London), April 8, 1996
 * The Herald (Glasgow), April 24, 1996
 * The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia), April 24,
 * The Guardian (London), July 12, 1996
 * The Ottawa Citizen, June 15, 1998
 * The Jerusalem Post, September 30, 2001
 * The New York Times, December 1, 2004
 * The New York Times, November 26, 2004
 * Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, November 26, 2004
 * The Jerusalem Post, May 25, 2004

Add the four above with Oblast and you get 15 vs 0. That's for post-independence time (last ten years). The 20 years search gives 70+ vs 0 towards Kiev but the language may have evolved since the times of Gorby. So, it is less relevant.

But getting back to the main argument, we should just decide whether it is a single term or simply a derivation from the city name. In the former case, it should be Kyivs'ka Oblast, in the latter case, it should be Kiev Oblast.

 * It's great that you "got back to the main argument", because that's the only argument here. Call this province whatever Ukrainian official name that makes sense, use the President's translation of the Constitution even.--Andrew Alexander 22:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we pretty much heared each other. Neither you nor I can say anything new. If it gets voted to the name you propose, I will live with it just fine. I think I am OK with Kyiv much more than you are with Kiev but I will leave the reasons why I think so out of this page. --Irpen 03:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * So exactly did you hear anyone if you continue ignoring this encyclopedia's policies? Should the Ukrainian naming policy get voted away by a bunch of Russian editors each time someone wants to apply that policy?--Andrew Alexander 22:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Could you also do a similar check for "Kyivs(')ka" and "Kievskaya"? I'm kind of curious if these are used in English at all.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ezhiki, I will check again, but if my memory serves me well, I did check that yesterday and both returned zero counts. But I will post here once I get to rechecking this. --Irpen 19:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, please check the name of this article. Does this return anything?--Andrew Alexander 22:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said above, neither "Kiev Oblast" nor "Kyiv Oblast" returned any hits at all. For the totally separate reasons we ended up using "Oblast" in article names, although some argued that articles should be called "XXX Region" or "XXX Province". If we ended up with whatever of the latter versions, we would have gotten the exact hits in Lexus Nexus with "Kiev". Since "Oblast" is kind of unique and only ised in Wikipedia and Britannica among the ref sources, we cannot find an exact match in the media.

 * However, this unit (oblast/province/region) is overwhelmingly called "Kiev XXX" by the media. So it is called by EB. We may change the WP convention and rename all oblasts to "regions". It would still be "Kiev Region" as per the media usage. Another way, is to get rid of sticking with nouns in all oblasts. Then it would be Kyivska Oblast. But in none of this cases the name you suggest (Kyiv Oblast) makes any sense. --Irpen 22:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course, a Ukrainian name for a Ukrainian province doesn't make any sense. A Russian name, however small number of hits obtained, makes a huge amount of sense. That is, not. Pick whatever name you like, but it has to mean "oblast", not just some vicinity of Kyiv. And you need to pick the most wide spread name, and also accepted by the Ukrainian government. Because that's what "Ukrainian National system" would generally mean. This isn't "Russian editors vote away a Ukrainian name", this is "Wikipedia has to enforce its own rules". This simply confirms that violating a policy means nothing around here.--Andrew Alexander 23:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) In the article I quoted above "Kiev Region" or "Kiev Province" means not some vicinity of Kiev but exactly "Kyivska Oblast". That we chose to use "Oblast" instead of "region" or "province" for article names was the result of an unrelated discussion. We can resume that discussion and decide to rename all articles to "provinces".
 * 2) I didn't say Ukrainian name makes no sense. I said Kyiv Oblast makes none. Kyivska Oblast would make sense IMO, which is a perfectly Ukrainian name, but would require us to reconsider the convention and rename all articles by applying a different logic to naming. Maybe it is worthy. It was discussed and decided to stick to the noun forms.
 * 3) "Accepted by UA government" is not an argument. Ukrainian government has no authority over the general usage in the English language. It does have an authority over how the governmental organizations must write. As such, it may mandate the usage of the State sponsored Holos Ukrayiny, but not in the international English language media or the non-Ukrainian ref sources.
 * 4) Ukrainian National System applies for transliteration.
 * 5) I repeatedly told you that your interpretation of "Wikipedia's own rules" is flawed. If others see that my interpretation is flawed and your is right, we will rename the article.
 * 6) The rest of your message is the rant that does not warrant any response. --Irpen 23:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

 * There is a set of arbitrary assumtions in the rant above. Starting from calling "oblast" a "region" and ending with calling a "Ukrainian National system" a tranliteration tool. The latter is especially funny when reading the next sentence in the same policy. And yes, a Russian name is still "above all". What a joke.--Andrew Alexander 00:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Alexander, I thought you were discussing this seriously. Had I realized that this was simply trolling, I would not have wasted my time as Do not feed the trolls is the golden rule that I learned around here. In any case, let me repeat that people here have mostly heard each other at this and other article talks. If I failed to convince you, I gues I will live with it. --Irpen 00:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Amazing, not only do you push Russian names disregarding rules and conventions of Wikipedia, you also manage to accuse people not agreeing with you of trolling.--Andrew Alexander 02:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read this slowly and try to understand. Kiev Oblast is not the Russian name which is "Киевская область" and the closest to this in English is "Kievskaya Oblast". On the other hand Kyiv Oblast is not the Ukrainian name, and the closest name to the Ukrainian one is Kyivs'ka Oblast, I do not object to the latter, provided that we decide, after a discussion, that names of all oblasts should be changed in WP, such as "L'vivska Oblast" instead of current Lviv Oblast, "Zhytomyrs'ka Oblsat" instead of current Zhytomyr Oblast, etc. "Kyiv Oblast" you propose is neither a Ukrainian name, nor an appropriate English name. If Kyiv/Kiev usage in English changes with time sufficiently to move the Kiev article, we would use "Kyiv Oblast" too provided that we don't change our mind regarding both a noun form and a rare in English "Oblast" word. Otherwise, it would be "Kyivska Oblast" or "Kyiv Province" or "Kyiv Region" or a combination thereof that would suite the evolved convention at some future point. It is pointless for us to keep saying each other again "read the conventions", we have both read them already. Other people are also, hopefully, reading the convention and see this discussion. If this vote gets flooded by newbies recruited from elsewhere, that would be a different story, of course, but I don't want even to talk about this for now.

As for "accusing you in trolling", I strongly feel so and I said so. You cannot deny that I tried to talk to you here patiently for a long enough time despite all the past contradictions. If you bring in some new points, I will respond. If you keep going in circles, I will not be repeating what I said for a teenth time. I let other editors here judge, whether I was right and fare. --Irpen 04:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Logically, the oblast is not just an "area around city of K__v". It is an officially established administrative entity of independent (and, legally, solely Ukrainophonic) state. Respectively, there are official acts regulating the existence of the oblast, namely the Constitution of Ukraine and corresponding laws of Ukraine. Undoubtfully, these documents are layed in Ukrainian and the oblast is called Kyivs'ka there. For a comparative example, St.Petersburg is a center of the Leningrad Oblast (not St.Petersburg oblast). Ukrained 17:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * St. Petersburg is not a correct example. St. Petersburg and Leningradskaya have different roots, while Kyiv and Kyivska do not.  This is a matter of common English spelling and consistency, not of a new name.  Neither Kiev nor its oblast were renamed.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Practically, they could be renamed. I'm not familiar with the exact texts of Soviet and Ukrainian SSR Constitutions. May be they (or other laws) included the phrase Kievskaya oblast. But since the adoption of the 1990 constitutional ammendments, and later the 1996 Constitution, the predecessing legislature lost its force. So the only legitimate name for the oblast, according to the Art. 133 of Constitution, is Київська область - no matter how the city is named. Ukrained 19:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This misses the point. There is no question that Київська область is the correct Ukrainian name and a name of the article in ua-Wiki. The question is only the name for the article in the English L encyclopedia. Britannica that AndriyK loves to quote has a separate article for this Oblast as I pointed above. The name of the EB article is "Kiev Oblast". --Irpen 20:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It is nonsense to have Kiev and Kyiv Oblast simultaneously. --Ghirlandajo 17:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * May be we should rename the Leningrad Oblast for the very same reason:)? Ukrained 18:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The "Kiev" part is common to both the city and the oblast, while for Leningrad Oblast it's not the case. St. Petersburg and Leningrad Oblast are different in the same way as Lutsk and Volyn Oblast—note that nobody here is trying to rename Volyn Oblast to Lutsk Oblast.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The "Kiev" part is common to both the city and the oblast? - don't get your point. It is common in Ukrainian, and it is Kyiv. In English WP, we should only consider that Kiev is a large city with its own global image, while oblast is purely the administrative unit of Ukraine, exclusively named by Ukrainian government.Ukrained
 * If I may so remind you, Ukrainian government does not have any authority over what name should be used in English. If English speakers still use "Kiev" and/or "Kiev Oblast", that's an unfortunate fact for Ukrainians, but a fact nevertheless.mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See statistic above provided by Andrew Alexander :) Ukrained 21:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I admit I missed that. Still, I doubt very much that an average reader knows what an "oblast" is, let alone the difference between "Kyiv oblast" and "Kiev oblast".  Such a reader will at least recognize the "Kiev" portion in "Kiev oblast".  "Kyiv oblast"—that contraction is likely just to be ignored.  This is strictly my personal opinion, of course, yet one that prevents me from changing my vote based on the google results (which I normally strongly consider) alone.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * nobody here is trying to rename Volyn Oblast to Lutsk Oblast - lucky we are... Ukrained
 * This sarcasm is misplaced. It was said to illustrate the difference and not to show some patronizing or mentoring attitude. --Irpen 20:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

 * No vote this move is very complicated, it can be done since Wiki is not consistent, but it better be resolved on naming conventions, but I would propose adding Kyiv oblast into the lead, since it is not Ukrainian but English from Ukrainian and the formal name of the city–Gnomz007(?) 18:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. --Irpen 18:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This proposal is made on the basis of a false statement: The official transliteration is either (full) Kyivs’ka oblast’, or (simplified) Kyivska oblast. —Michael Z. 2005-12-14 06:58 Z
 * Is Ukrainian Consitution posted on the Ukrainian President web site a false statement too?--Andrew Alexander 22:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The Ukrainian Constitution does not state that Kyiv Oblast is a transliteration of "Київська область;" it isn't a transliteration of anything. The Constitution's translators formulated the English name "Kyiv Oblast," following the same convention that they use for the English name of the city Kyiv.  Wikipedia uses a different naming convention.
 * If you're going to get picky and technical about these things, then you should get it right, or you'll simply be accused of pursuing your political agenda rather than trying to improve Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 2005-12-15 17:25 Z
 * Michael, the translators chose the compromise of the most common and precise name for that Ukrainian province. After that the name has gained an official status since the translation is now authorized by the Ukrainian President office. It's fine to fight someone's "political agenda" as long as that fight is within the rules of Wikipedia. In the case the rules are ignored, the fight looses its validity. The Wikipedia rule states clearly to use Ukrainian national standards for geographical names. In this case such name also beats its Russian equivalent 15 to 1 in Google search results.--Andrew Alexander 20:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ditto.!I told you the same almost verbatim here. See the discussion below. And I think "would simply be accused" is an understatement, but maybe that's just me. --Irpen 17:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ditto.!I told you the same almost verbatim here. See the discussion below. And I think "would simply be accused" is an understatement, but maybe that's just me. --Irpen 17:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Result
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. WhiteNight T 17:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Kotsiubynske
Answering my own question: the town of Kotsiubynske (

Коцюбинське, historically Bilychi village) is indeed an exclave of Kiev Oblast in Kiev city. It has been pretty hard to investigate online :( and I found only this supposedly broken link to support the info. Looks like UA govt is hiding this silly geo-bureaucratic fact as much as possible :))). Ukrained 22:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

City-states ???
OK guys, who's adding fantasies about Kyiv and Sevastopol as city-states? These are municipalities of the unitary centralized state emerged from totalitarian rule only 15 years ago! What are you talking about :))? They remain very dependent from the central government, at least by formal means. Please discuss such bold assumptions at talks first.AlexPU

New map
... may be produced by retouching this nice image. Ukrained2012 (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Kiev or Kyiv
Which is it? The page title uses Kiev, most of the text uses Kyiv (including for the name of the city). I don't care which is used, just pick one. What I do care about is the fact that the city is called Kiev in English, whatever the decision about the name of the oblast and the name of this page, any use of the city name alone should be Kiev. --Khajidha (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be Kiev regardless. If most of the article refers to the city as Kyiv then it should be reverted back because that was a unilateral change on someone's part that was taken without any prior discussion. Consensus has established that Kiev is the proper name that we should use on Wikipedia, and in 95% of the articles, it is. § DDima 15:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I got everything. I couldn't just use a search and replace, as some uses of Kyiv are legitimate: quotations, source names, discussion of the transliteration. The previous change to Kyiv had made total nonsense of a sentence discussing the two different names. --Khajidha (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. § DDima 17:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Rename page to Kyiv Oblast
In Wikipedia we should use official names of regions and cities therefore consider it appropriate to rename a page on the official name specified in the official translation of the Constitution of Ukraine, which is used in all documents and the names of institutions (Kyiv Oblast).

Official translation the Constitution of Ukraine: www.kmu.gov.ua/document/110977042/Constitution_eng.doc

Use header Kiev Oblast is not approved in the official documents of the country, and was used in the Soviet Union. I believe that the use of the name Kiev Oblast possible only as an additional and historic, but not official. Tunyk (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

 * See Talk:Kiev/naming. Thomas.W talk 11:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

як виправити назву статті? не "Kiev oblast" (це з російської, а не з української), а Kyiv oblast' - Олена Лісовська
 * Per WP:COMMONNAME, no. "Kiev" is the common name in English.  See Talk:Kiev/naming.  --Taivo (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kiev Oblast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061210074522/http://www.kyiv-obl.gov.ua/eng/viewpage.php3?t=4&p=94 to http://www.kyiv-obl.gov.ua/eng/viewpage.php3?t=4&p=94

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kiev Oblast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160204091556/http://www.hromadske.tv/politics/poroshenko-priznachiv-maksima-melnichuka-golovoyu-/ to http://www.hromadske.tv/politics/poroshenko-priznachiv-maksima-melnichuka-golovoyu-/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060218190749/http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/regions/reg_Kyiv/ to http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/regions/reg_Kyiv/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110305190120/http://en.ukrainecityguide.com/regions/kievskaya/Kyiv_Region_.htm to http://en.ukrainecityguide.com/regions/kievskaya/Kyiv_Region_.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Kyiv Oblast
Hi, Place Clichy. The oblast doesn't have a name separate from the city. It’s name Київська область, Kyivska oblast, is formed as an adjective based on the city’s name, literally “Kyivan oblast,” or “oblast of Kyiv.” (much like oblast de Kiev: “l’oblast de Kiev or oblast de Kyïv”.) Starting another RM is silly, so please just look at the facts and reconsider. At least don’t edit-war and push calling the city “Kiev (Kyiv)” everywhere, because that battle is lost. Thanks. —Michael Z. 15:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I just believe at first sight that "Kiev Oblast" is a lot more frequent that "Kyiv Oblast" in the English language. What matters here is the name used in English, not in Ukrainian. It is not uncommon to have the name of the oblast not exactly following the name of its center, see for instance how Leningrad Oblast is called despite the head city being renamed Saint Petersburg many years ago. I know this town called Koropi in Greece whose municipality is called Kropia (litt. Dimos Kropias, Deme of Kropia) despite the name of the town. Starting a RM can never be "silly", especially seeing the number of RMs started for the single Kiev/Kyiv article over the years. The latest RM that resulted in renaming the article about the city to Kyiv is far, far, very far from showing a clear and over-reaching consensus. Clearly, it does not mean that any and every occurrence of the word "Kiev" on the English Wikipedia should be replaced by Kyiv, especially when a historical or other specific term has a long-standing favour in English-language publications. E.g. certainly the name of the Kiev Governorate or the Kiev Viceroyalty (18th and 19th century entities) did not suddenly change overnight, and renaming them to use Kyiv would be a complete anachronism. As the consensus is weak and was fought for years about the name of the city, and per the examples above, imho it does not extends to other entities.
 * In the spirit of WP:BRD, you are kindly invited to open a discussion on the subject of the name of the oblast in the English language. Place Clichy (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Straw poll: how to move Kiev Oblast → Kyiv Oblast
This is not a formal move request. This is a straw poll to gauge the need for a move request. Please don’t bother commenting, but just vote Speedy or Request, or whatever. I will close it when I feel like it, hopefully soon. I will request participation at talk:Kyiv, WP:WikiProject Ukraine. —Michael Z. 16:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy. —Michael Z. 16:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Well, WP:RM says the following:
 * The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:
 * there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
 * someone could reasonably disagree with the move.
 * It's a no-brainer here for Kiev Oblast: both are checked. You need the RM discussion, it's not a matter of straw poll. Place Clichy (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Place Clichy, many will argue that this has just been settled over a massive three-month debate (you seem to have missed the fun on that one), and will be annoyed with a new RM. But you are technically right. If you’re sure you won’t change your mind, I will just cut this poll and call an RM so we can get on with it. —Michael Z. 19:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Mzajac is correct. Usually when a city/state name change happens on Wikipedia, all modern uses of the name on Wikipedia also change unless the place-name involved can be shown to be the current modern spelling. This happened a couple years ago with Burma moving to Myanmar. Historical items like so-and-so the king of Burma we did not change to so-and-so the king of Myanmar. But if Ukraine today uses Kyiv Oblast as the spelling of the administrative center, it will likely be an absolute snowball closing of the RM because the debate just happened at talk:kiev. It's your call but it seems there are better uses for a formal RM. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Especially since the responses below for Speedy move include both supporters and opponents of the original move of Kiev to Kyiv. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A good point is made here in writing all modern usages. Precisely, not all proper names of specific entities should automatically renamed with the new name if they follow specific historiography conventions, such as Kiev Voivodeship or Kiev Governorate which were replaced in the text of this article in this edit]. It would be just like renaming the Bombay Presidency with the name of Mumbai. About Kiev Oblast, my first belief is that it refers to the Soviet subdivision just as the modern Ukrainian one. Place Clichy (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There’s nothing to do with the Soviets. It has remained “Kievan oblast” in Russian and “Kyivan oblast” in Ukrainian since 1932. What has changed is the English language’s respect for Ukrainians’ self-determination in the form of naming their own places. If you can’t point out a single reliable source that intentionally uses Kyiv (city) but Kiev oblast, then there seems to me to be no real point in going through the motions of an RM. But I will start one shortly anyway to resolve this properly. —Michael Z. 13:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Speedy. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy. Let's not pretend an RM regarding the city didn't just happen. Discussions have consequences. -- Calidum  18:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy per Calidum. Lev!vich 19:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy to the extent a discussion is needed this is it, move it speedy, because the current makes no sense in light of Kyiv. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy - given the linkage of the city and the oblast, the default assumption should be that the names will match. --Khajidha (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 19 September 2020

 * 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 section.

Moved early per WP:SNOW and consensus garnered below. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 12:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Kiev Oblast → Kyiv Oblast – The article Kiev has now been moved to Kyiv, and the rationale for approving that move at talk:Kyiv applies here as well, referring to WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:PLACE, WP:MODERNPLACENAME, and WP:WIAN. Additionally, since no competently written source would choose to present a factual statement like “Kiev Oblast is named after its main city Kyiv,” WP:CONSISTENT and WP:TITLECON should be considered relevant and important. —Michael Z. 16:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy support I think this is is uncontriversial and we should just make the bold move now. The guidance clearly supports the change. Garuda28 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and speedy close. I opposed the move of the main article, but since it has been moved there really is no sound justification to oppose this move. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy support per above. Lev!vich 17:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and speedy close. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I've been convinced by the arguments above about the oblast. Place Clichy (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 * 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.

Move discussion
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cherkasy Oblast which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This move discussion ended with "No Consensus to move." Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kyiv Oblast


text:
Talk:Kirovohrad Oblast

Comment
I was born in Kirovohrad :) I will write here great article about this city :) I only need to find some information - it can be found only in offline sources, so I need a time.

Vitaly.

lowercase "oblast"

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Kirovohrad Oblast → Kirovohrad oblast – lowercase "oblast": just a common word, not a name Franta Oashi (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC) --Franta Oashi (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. This is against consensus within the Ukraine WikiProject which has established the naming scheme for the articles. If you are to change just these 3-4 categories, then what about every single other page/article/category/template that links to other province names with uppercase "Oblast" versus the lowercase one? This is highly unproductive, it would be best to bring this up to the relevant board pages where all active Ukrainian Wikipedians can discuss this and can achieve consensus for the topic. § DDima 15:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose as per DDima. Proposition is brought by an user outside of Ukraine WikiProject and is totally random. The user has not done anything constructive for the Ukrainian articles and now proposes actions that were already discussed before. If the user commits to the Ukraine WikiProject it could be discussed otherwise this discussion should not be even considered. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Such tradition for provinces not only in Ukraine.-- Anatoliy  ( Talk ) 23:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. The fact that "oblast" is a common word does not force us to write it lowercase. It is common in English to use uppercase common words, like in Smith County, Conwy County Borough or Halifax Regional Municipality, thus the request simply does not make sense — NickK (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kropyvnytskyi
I know I am not part of Project Ukraine, but I was researching Ukraine in my free time and the article says that Kirovohrad was officially renamed. If that is the case, then shouldn't the page be moved to Kropyvnytskyi Oblast? TheFreezerFlame — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFreezerFlame (talk • contribs) 21:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The oblast (province) is not renamed yet. Only the city was renamed. In order to rename the oblast it is necessary to change the Constitution; the process of the changing began, but did not finish yet. Moreover now there is state of emergency (war) in Ukraine and changing the Constitution is forbidden during state of emergency. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cherkasy Oblast which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kirovohrad Oblast