Talk:Sloviansk

UA/RU names as an article name

This is Славянск, it is referenced Slavyansk in 1911 like that. Strange Donetsk Oblast does not list it.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 05:14, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I can see that the city itself calls itself Slavyansk at its English site. But what's more important, is other modern encyclopedias:

Britannica: Slov'yansk, mentioning Russian Slavyansk spelling in the article,
Columbia Encyclopedia, also: Slovyansk
Americana: has no article but mentions Slavyansk in Donetsk region article

In international media search there is 1 AP mention of Slaviansk and 1 BBC mention of Slovyansk.

So, there is a slight advantage toward Slovyansk, and also it is transliteration from Ukrainian, an official language, though a minority language in the area. I would say we move it to Slovyansk, but I am not in particular rush. --Irpen 05:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I was ignorant of Ukrainian transliteration, I guess that is why I only saw old mentions, I guess Slovyansk would be good, a but a redirect must stay, and a mention too, since today keyword Slavyansk gives more google hits, Slovyansk gives more fresh and official records –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 05:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I entirely agree regarding the redirect and mention of RU name in the first line. We could also write a paragraph about the name history, similar to Kamyanets-Podilskyi (Kamyanets-Podolskiy) article. Also, the city is referred to as Slavyansk in WW2 related topics. I would just move it, no need to wait until someone creates a politcally motivated redirect from Slovyansk to Slavyansk thus complicating the move (which would thae require a vote and an admin action). --Irpen 05:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I support entirely, I only think about also placing a redirect for spelling Slov'yansk, those apostrophes seem to be used sometimes.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 05:51, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Done. I will take care of all redirects in a minute. --Irpen 05:53, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm native citizen of SLAVYANSK... 95%!!! of locals are russian-native-speakers... so, it must be "Slavyansk". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeka911 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, Jeka, but this is not the strong argument. Residents often call their cities differently from WP. Otherwise, the Moscow article would have been called Moskva, Warsaw article as Warszawa, Munich as München, and so on. We have to comply with WP:NC and they call for Sloviansk. --Irpen 20:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. While Zarcadia's findings from Google News indicate that common usage may be changing, for now there's consensus against a move. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sloviansk → Slavyansk, Ukraine – Overwhelming Russian speaking, own website calling it Славянск, translit. Slavyansk http://www.slavrada.gov.ua/. 2 mio hits in https://www.google.com/search?q=slavyansk (includes Slavyansk-na-Kubani - if someone can exclude it, fine.) ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Why change something that doesn't hurt anyone? A Google search (with exclusion of Wikipedia-related hits) shows more for the current name rather than the Russian variant. In cases such as Kiev vs. Kyiv, I can understand the view that Kiev should be more prevalent. However, that is not the case when it comes to place names such as Sloviansk where it is not often seen in English-language references (and where the Ukrainian variant of the name is still more prevalent in the internet than the Russian variant). Regardless, it is very suspicious to me seeing how so many "pro-Russian" Wikipedia editors popped up on Wikipedia all of a sudden after the unrest began with no prior useful editing history. § DDima 17:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search (with exclusion of Wikipedia-related hits) shows more for the current name rather than the Russian variant. Please show evidence of your claim. Zarcadia (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the Ukrainian variant should still be prevalent over the Russian one. Sloviansk/Slovyansk are both Ukrainian names, just that there are different methods of transliterating certain letters which explains the disparity. Regardless Google shows 71,100 hits for Slovyansk AND Ukraine (removing the potential for confusion with the Russian village) and 23,900 for Slavyansk AND Ukraine. The disparity you see should rather be compared to 72,000 for Sloviansk AND Ukraine vs. 70,100 for Slaviansk AND Ukraine which assumes that the cyrillic "я" be transliterated as an "ia" rather than a "ya."

I would not be opposed to moving it to Slovyansk, however, there is a consistency among Ukrainian place name articles to title them according to the national transliteration scheme (WP:UKR) as apposed to other methods. Honestly, this is all a big waste of time and it is frivolous to re name articles one way or another. Keep it the way it is, it ain't hurting no one. § DDima 06:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Whether it's overwhelmingly Russian or Ukrainian speaking is irrelevant, we use the WP:COMMONNAME in English-speaking reliable sources, which is Slavyansk. [1] vs. [2]. Zarcadia (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Slavyansk. I'm not sure why we're proposing Slavyansk, Ukraine. Don't know why we need the ", Ukraine" bit. Per Zarcadia, Slavyansk does appear to be the WP:COMMONNAME. NickCT (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Slavyansk-na-Kubani at the dab page, though I don't see how that has a claim to disambiguate Slavyansk; this should be moved as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Zarcadia (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re Zarcadia - Ah! I didn't see the disambig page initially. Looking at it now, I'm a little confused why there would be a disambig page at all. Perhaps I'm missing some subtlety of Russian here, but the two towns being "disambiguated" have entirely different names. In English we don't need a disambig page for New York, York and Yorktown. They're different names. I also think this disambig page should go. NickCT (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM; Wikipedia is supposed to follow, not lead. Let's wait for the current crisis to settle down. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TOOSOON? It's called Slavyansk for decades. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CNN: Slaviansk [3]; BBC Sloviansk [4]; NYT both Slaviansk [5] and Slovyansk [6]; Washington Post Slovyansk [7]; CBC Slaviansk [8]; the Telegraph Slaviansk [9]; The Independent Slaviansk [10]; The Economist Sloviansk [11]. It looks like three forms Slaviansk, Sloviansk, and Slovyansk are in contention; Slavyansk does not see to be used by mainstream media. Gven that I vote oppose and wait until one of the forms gets enough widespread.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot the Guardian which uses Slavyansk. Still, I stick to my oppose. If anything, Slaviansk seems to be the most widespread now.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People that don't change
Strongly oppose. Zarcadia's arguments make no sense even using his WP:COMMONNAME. It is clear that Sloviansk is used equally as Slavyansk if not predominantly. The Encyclopedia of Britannica calls the city as Sloviansk. The google search for Slavyansk provides sources from the Russia Today and Voice of Russia which, of course, would use their own transliteration. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the case with Sloviansk should fall within the WP:UE rather than WP:COMMONNAME. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of Slavyansk should be mentioned as it does stand out, similarly to the Magyar name of Berehove, Beregszász. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some locals call their city as Slavinsk with an accent on the first syllabus (Dispassionate Friday in Slovyansk). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oppose per common name. Also, per Ukrainian official transliteration, 'ia' is preferred over 'ya' when following a consonant, so the current form is spot on at the moment. --Львівське (говорити) 16:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a case for WP:RUS, not Ukrainian transliteration. The Common name is coming from the Russian language. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  There is no reason why WP:RUS should apply in this case. This argument is irrelevant.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nationally-motivated arguments aside, we follow WP:NCGN. Sloviansk is not a place for which a single, widely conventionalized English name exists (as in Rome vs. Roma, Munich vs. München, or Kiev vs. Kyiv), so we are left with choosing a transliteration of either of the two local names. The choice of transliteration system (e.g. "-ya-" versus "-ia-" spellings) is not a matter of following the majority of sources, but a matter of consistency according to Wikipedia style guidelines; currently we favor "-ya-" for Russian according to WP:RUS, but "-ia-" for Ukrainian according to WP:UKR. That means we are left with choosing between Russian "Slavyansk" and Ukrainian "Sloviansk". Looking at source usage, counting all variants with "Slov-" as being based on the Ukrainian form, and all variants with "Slav-" as being based on the Russian form, and considering only attestations in native English media, I don't think either of these names predominates strongly enough to force the issue either way. That leaves us with following the official native form according to the authorities of the state in question, so we choose Ukrainian Sloviansk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

what about the major

Nelja Igoriwna Schtepa ? disappeared?--Anidaat (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SLAVYANSK

Why do you spell Kiev the correct way, but Slavyansk the retarded way?

The root is SLAV, not slov --24.203.108.54 (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sloviansk is the correct way. SlOviansk is a city in Ukraine, and in Ukraine, the majority of the place names are named on Wikipedia by their respective names. Kiev and Odessa are exceptions to the rule since their names are more established in reliable English language sources compared to Kyiv and Odesa. Regardless, consensus above has established that this article will be titled Sloviansk rather than Slavyansk. § DDima 17:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siege section too long

The section on the Siege of Sloviansk is way too long, and should be cut down, since it's covered in its own article in detail anyway. It would be nice to trim out the least essential info and consolidate things for a more big-picture view. HappyWith (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest it's always an issue with these kind of articles / situations, here you have a designated article on the Siege of Sloviansk, but the content there substantially differs in parts from that on the Sloviansk article itself. I would even say that the content on the Sloviansk article itself is stronger, better written.

It's complicated when you have kind of a 'half-way house' situation - the Siege of Sloviansk article itself is much longer, but also lacking some important detail listed on the Sloviansk page. The first task here then, to my mind, would be to ensure that the Siege article contains all of the information. And then work out what to do with the Sloviansk article itself. The best options here would seem to be either reducing it to a brief paragraph, to direct people to the Siege of Sloviansk article, or leaving it as it is. There is a case to be made for either - on one hand, the Wikipedia reader should have the full story, and facts, in one encyclopedial article. On the other hand, in the vast majority of cases the reason that someone will come to the Sloviansk page will be due to war-related events, and do we want to get the reader to one article only to send them to another? There is also the fact that the Siege in general is embedded into the body of the article, so we have the Siege, and then the 'Aftermath of the siege', and on. It's a complicated situation, with no definitive answer, but in the first place I'd say the task is to work on the Siege of Sloviansk article itself, to make sure that has all the information. Then, we can build a consensus here on how we proceed with the Sloviansk page. Hope this is helpful! Luganchanka (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]