Talk:Birky, Chuhuiv Raion, Kharkiv Oblast
Latest comment: 3 years ago by No such user in topic Requested move 7 June 2021
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Birky, Chuhuiv Raion, Kharkiv Oblast article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Requested move 7 June 2021
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: There is consensus to move per WP:MODERNPLACENAME. However, per WP:UAPLACE (and WP:PRECISION): If there is more than one settlement with a certain name in an oblast, disambiguate by district.
it should be Birky, Chuhuiv Raion, while the other one should be at Birky, Kharkiv Raion, with Birky converted to a dab page. No such user (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Borki, Kharkiv Oblast → Birky, Chuhuiv Raion, Kharkiv Oblast – This is the Ukrainian native and official name. Satisfies WP:UAPLACE and spelling per WP:UKR (which support the WP:CRITERIA). Although it is associated with a 133-year-old event in the Kharkiv governorate of the Russian empire, the article title is governed by WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Disambiguation is unnecessary. —Michael Z. 16:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- No, it should be moved to Birky, Chuhuiv Raion, Kharkiv Oblast. Birky is a different locality.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oops. Updated. Thanks. —Michael Z. 17:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nomination, Ymblanter and RicardoNixon97. Ukrainian name for Ukrainian topic. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. No evidence has been given that the proposed name is the common name in English, and it seems unlikely as its main claim to fame is the Borki train disaster. The two information pages WP:UAPLACE and WP:UKR cited above do not overrule the policy at WP:CRITERIA, also cited, and nor in this case does it support them. Andrewa (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- The English-language sources in the train wreck article also tell us it took place in “Kharkov province.” This article is about a modern place whose name has been officially changed, the historical name might be suitable for an article about a nineteenth-century event, but not for this one (with reference to the other guideline cited in the move request). Since you asked, I conducted some searches according to WP:SET: Google Books gives “about” 1,370 to 1,800 results (1:1.3), and if you limit Books to the 21st century, in light of WP:MODERNPLACENAME, the difference becomes 1,310 to 1,450 (1:1.1). Google Scholar gives 361 to 158 (2.3:1). I interpret this as indicating that there is not one single WP:COMMONNAME, and so meeting the five WP:CRITERIA for the subject of this article should be considered explicitly (and WP:UAPLACE and WP:UKR certainly support the proposed title for this Ukrainian place name). —Michael Z. 21:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Some evidence here, thank you. But also some logical flaws in a needlessly long post. and WP:UAPLACE and WP:UKR certainly support the proposed title for this Ukrainian place name... They do indeed. But so what? The argument was that they do not overrule WP:AT. And they don't. This article is about a modern place whose name has been officially changed, the historical name might be suitable for an article about a nineteenth-century event, but not for this one (with reference to the other guideline cited in the move request)... I think you are misquoting that naming convention. When it refers to names having changed, it means in common usage. We do give preference to recent sources, according to NAMECHANGES. The evidence you have belatedly and grudgingly supplied may be relevant, but since you so misquote the relevant policy, maybe not. Definitely should be checked. Andrewa (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I didn’t “misquote” anything. Please re-read WP:MODERNPLACENAME more carefully. I wasn’t “grudging” when you showed up with an unsupported, incorrect assumption and I supplied the evidence that you could have gathered instead of piping up. I’ll remind you that commonname is a shortcut for supporting the five criteria, and not an end in itself. Let’s stick to the question and please don’t bother with the personal evaluations. Thanks for citing WP:NAMECHANGES, which also supports the move. —Michael Z. 16:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- The onus is on those proposing a move to provide evidence, not those opposing it. You failed to do that until asked. Agree we should not personalise, but I think that's exactly what you have been doing. We seem to disagree on the proper application of WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Such things happen, and just because you don't agree with someone that doesn't mean they haven't read the policy, and I suggest you withdraw that particular suggestion.
- I'm glad you find WP:NAMECHANGES helpful. But of course it proves nothing without evidence. Andrewa (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I cited evidence relevant to name changes, above: search result counts after the name change. —Michael Z. 02:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- I didn’t “misquote” anything. Please re-read WP:MODERNPLACENAME more carefully. I wasn’t “grudging” when you showed up with an unsupported, incorrect assumption and I supplied the evidence that you could have gathered instead of piping up. I’ll remind you that commonname is a shortcut for supporting the five criteria, and not an end in itself. Let’s stick to the question and please don’t bother with the personal evaluations. Thanks for citing WP:NAMECHANGES, which also supports the move. —Michael Z. 16:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Some evidence here, thank you. But also some logical flaws in a needlessly long post. and WP:UAPLACE and WP:UKR certainly support the proposed title for this Ukrainian place name... They do indeed. But so what? The argument was that they do not overrule WP:AT. And they don't. This article is about a modern place whose name has been officially changed, the historical name might be suitable for an article about a nineteenth-century event, but not for this one (with reference to the other guideline cited in the move request)... I think you are misquoting that naming convention. When it refers to names having changed, it means in common usage. We do give preference to recent sources, according to NAMECHANGES. The evidence you have belatedly and grudgingly supplied may be relevant, but since you so misquote the relevant policy, maybe not. Definitely should be checked. Andrewa (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- The English-language sources in the train wreck article also tell us it took place in “Kharkov province.” This article is about a modern place whose name has been officially changed, the historical name might be suitable for an article about a nineteenth-century event, but not for this one (with reference to the other guideline cited in the move request). Since you asked, I conducted some searches according to WP:SET: Google Books gives “about” 1,370 to 1,800 results (1:1.3), and if you limit Books to the 21st century, in light of WP:MODERNPLACENAME, the difference becomes 1,310 to 1,450 (1:1.1). Google Scholar gives 361 to 158 (2.3:1). I interpret this as indicating that there is not one single WP:COMMONNAME, and so meeting the five WP:CRITERIA for the subject of this article should be considered explicitly (and WP:UAPLACE and WP:UKR certainly support the proposed title for this Ukrainian place name). —Michael Z. 21:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Support per wp:modernplacename—blindlynx (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2021 (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.
P.S. Ymblanter approached me on my talk, pointing out that UAPLACE guidance I quoted is out of sync with the practice [1]. While I continue to have strong reservations about the "practice", I'm moving these two articles further to Birky, Chuhuiv Raion, Kharkiv Oblast and Birky, Kharkiv Raion, Kharkiv Oblast per his request. No such user (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)