Talk:Podilsko–Vyhurivska line

Russian name

Is there really a need for mentioning the Russian name? I can understand about the other lines (since they were built during the Soviet times), but this line is brand new. — Alex^(U|C|E) 00:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, there is no real need.. I actually don't mind if there is only Ukrainian name or both.. so if you want to remove it, feel free.. —dima/talk/ 00:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

---

So you want to break consistency for one line? How about the stations that were opened in post-Soviet times? (Articles about which were wrote solely by me) Do we also purge them? Please with respect to WP:POINT, Ukraine can choose to continue its linguistic genocide all it wants, however that does not change the fact that Kiev speaks Russian in its overwhelming majority. So the Russian stays. Reverting will only ruin our perceptions of each other.--Kuban Cossack 12:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Kiev speaks Russian, so good for it. However Russian is not the official language of Ukraine and therefore this line never had an official Russian name. And quit attacking Ukraine, some people might find it offensive. — Alex^(U|C|E) 05:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Russian does have a special status in the Ukrainian constitution, you are not going to omit it from new structures in Sevastopol or Lugansk or Kharkov are you? No, so why should Kiev be different, does the fact that KievArchUnion wrote their articles in Russian say anything? Does the fact that the renders of these new stations have Russian names say anything? Also attacking Ukraine? Where have I attacked it? However as offensive as you mind find putting in a language that all of Kiev speaks, (even though it breaks Ukrainian law, which strictly speaking is not applicable to wikipedia), I find that puny compared to the people, who driven by their in-superiority complexes, who wrote nothing (as of me writing this) to improve the articles, disrupt otAer peoples' work. Please wikipedia is not going to adjust to your personal tastes, irrespective of how strong you feel about this (and you did manage to pick one ridiculous point to be feeling strong about). Now I am going to restore the Russian name, if you want it to be removed start an official process, although really there are things in wikipedia on which time can be better spent on. --Kuban Cossack 13:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be telling me that Kiev is Sevastopol or Luhansk. — Alex^(U|C|E) 23:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

So you want to have double standards for Kiev??? --Kuban Cossack 03:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What part of "do not revert until consensus is reached" do you not understand? — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to keep reverting to your version (which has not been agreed upon), you will get blocked. It is pointless. There was consensus (divided by a line above), and then you came along and decided to change it against consensus. — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I will accept this disputed revision only after consensus was reached on it. Until then, the version on which consensus was reached should be used. — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:POINT and removing text is bordering on WP:VAND. As for consensus version, on his talk page DDima has clearly stated, that his involvement is a simple case of being an observer not a participant in the dispute. --Kuban Cossack 14:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Translit

Removed. :-) Off-topic: is there any policy on transliterating Ukrainian? I've seen a few versions that look like Czech. I'll check on zakon.rada.gov.ua. — Alex^(U|C|E) 06:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... WP:UKR says otherwise. I wonder why some people used the Czech-style alphabet. — Alex^(U|C|E) 06:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, some people just like to use the scholarly transliteration system and think it is closer to the original cyrillic version (and perhaps shorter too): like ж to ž not zh.. —dima/talk/ 17:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe WP:UKR needs to be updated with that... — Alex^(U|C|E) 03:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tatarka

Find it there [1], [2] Sorry for the quality of the latter, but that station will be there. Even Urbanrail recognises its right to existance [3] --Kuban Cossack 12:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This would be more accurate: http://archunion.com.ua/img/2007/05/s_05_001.jpg. Up to date as of last month. — Alex^(U|C|E) 05:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for returning it, also Vokzalnaya II is described separately for now, as to the best of my knowledge there will not be a cross-platform transfer on it, thus it is necessary to have a separate article for the station. --Kuban Cossack 12:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the reason did not hang long enough for you to revert once again [4]... sigh. Revert warring out of such petty issues (removing a II from the article) that is just WP:LEW. --Kuban Cossack 03:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is speculation. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball. I can de-link it, but all we know is that the station is called "Vokzalna". — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Podilsko-Voskresenska_Line&action=edit&section=3 Editing Talk:Podilsko-Voskresenska Line (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This can happen and there are several examples in post-Soviet space of it occuring, however they will be two separate stations, only cross-platform transfers should be described as one article. --Kuban Cossack 20:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That is speculation. Let it remain de-linked for now, until we actually see concepts for the station. As far as I know, it could be called Vokzalna III, there will be three Vokzalna transfers, one from the fourth surface line on the right bank. — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not speculation, unless of course you are saying that it will be the same 1960s platform with two branches coming off it (which I refuse to believe, as the orientation of the SBLs platform will be essentially at right angles to the PVL's one. In such conditions even a cross-platform transfer would require very tight bands of the tunnels. If you don't like Vokzalna II would Vokzalna (Podilsko-Voskresenska) suit you. You can retain in the tamplate as simply Vokzalna, I could not care less. --Kuban Cossack 20:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We're not starting the article yet, just leave it de-linked, we will discuss it when more information about the station floats up. — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean de-liked, leave it as simply black text? And its never too late to start an article, in fact the quicker you let off this petty issue and leave it as you did not seem to mind for Lvivska Brama or Vyrlytsia the faster I will write that article (which will have a Вокзальная in the lead)--Kuban Cossack 20:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is easier settling the issue in one article and then writing a policy/guideline based on it. And yes, leave as black text, there is not enough information to start an article on it. — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case why not ax the template to Glubochistkaya, as Pl. Pobedy's design is also planned?--Kuban Cossack 20:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to start another dispute, but this time purposefully? — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What dispute? The one that you began already qualifies as WP:LAME, I have no interests in disputes, I just want a reasoning that is not based on amateurish principles. --Kuban Cossack 20:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see what your point is with Pl. Pobedy. — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The same as with Vokzalnaya 2. --Kuban Cossack 20:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point with that either. — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So you do not see a future separate station on the PVL?--Kuban Cossack 20:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you decided to refer to it in Russian and highlighted it in bold. — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

On the talk page I see no sin in reffering to anything in the name I choose, I highlighted in bold something that will appear in the future article that I might right (and the sooner you end this silly dispute the higher the change of might become a will).--Kuban Cossack 21:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You are as much a participant of this dispute as I am, you have to end it too. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if you just accepted an extra half a line it would not have begun, I think the majority of people who read this do not read it for the Ukrainian language or the Russian in the lead, but for the context of the article. --Kuban Cossack 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected

The article is protected for one week. Please endeavor to find common ground in your dispute.If you are ready to resume editing before the week has elapsed, or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Thank you. Time to start the discussion all over again. My reasoning: Ukrainian, not Russian, is the official language of Ukraine. Also, this line is only known by its Ukrainian name, other lines were known by their Russian names because of the Soviet regime, which is over. Therefore, this article shouldn't include the Russian name. — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Request at Third opinion

Kuban Cossak and Alex, could you answer a couple of easy questions for me before I can form my opinion? I think I know the answer to 1 and 3, but I want to see your views.

1. The Ukraine article states only one official language. Is this correct?
2. What proportion of the population – in Kiev itself and in the entire country – speak Russian as their first language?
3. Does the Kiev underground system provide alternative place/station names in Russian, like one would expect to find in Wales or Hong Kong, for instance?

Adrian M. H. 12:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll just reply to the points and add a few on

1. It is true that Ukrainian is the only official language in Ukraine. But Russian has a special clause in the Ukrainian constitution as a minority language. There is an article Russian language in Ukraine to read.
2. Nearly all of Kiev speak Russian, it is simply a pure fact, there are about a thousand different surveys, but its one thing that really needs no explanation.
3. Yes and no, no in the terms that at present most announcements are in Ukrainian, yes, in terms that the official architectural body which right now designed the stations for this new line uses Russian admire for yourself. So argument about the line not being known by its Russian version, looses credibility
4. What we have here is a simple case of dis-consistency (if there is such a word) all three metro lines (which I solely wrote btw) have a Russian name (nonetheless only in the lead). All the new stations (which again I too wrote, some of them are DYKs now) also have a Russian name in the lead. Nobody, as of yet, chose to contest that. The Kiev Metro map (which I drew) also has a Russian name underneath its main Ukrainian one, including on the stations for this one.
5. Now I know that I do not WP:OWN an article (or a set of articles as is in this case), however Akhristov has not actually referenced a policy that allows him to do this semi-vandalism-type edit (which is the only type of edit that he did to this article so far), I can only say that this is a strict violation of WP:POINT and the reason that he gave has long since been disproved. --Kuban Cossack 14:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. That helps me to build a (hopefully) fairer picture of the background to this. I, too, am a proponent of consistency; I consider it to be an important consideration when constructing groups of articles – and, of course, the consistency of Wikipedia as a whole. The facts in favour are:

• You have included equivalent Russian names in other related articles and this has not been challenged. Kurenivsko-Chervonoarmiyska Line, for instance, has been around since late 2005 and no one has contested or removed the Russian name.
• The constitutional provision and the use of Russian as a second language in Ukraine by what one could call a minority of sufficient significance to be catered for.

I can imagine that there may be some potential for division and conflict over the use of Russian in Ukraine, with respect to the history involved, so this is probably a subject that needs diplomacy. At this time, based on the evidence that I can find and that which has been provided, I can see no compelling reason not to continue to provide the alternative Russian name in these articles. The only compelling reason to leave it out would be if it could cause significant offense to some members of the Ukrainian population, although we would have to bear in mind even then that Wikipedia is not censored. Alex is still welcome to comment if he wishes, and I will listen to any reasoned and fair argument. Adrian M. H. 14:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not being part to any discussion as to the languages used in this article, I would like to point out a few inaccuracies in the above statement. First of all, the Russian language doesn't have any status neither in Ukraine nor in Kyiv whatsoever. Please read carefully the above-mentioned article on the Russian language in Ukraine. It is one of minority languages rpotected by the Constitution, please note one of not the minority language. So, if the metro station was built in Mukacheve, where Hungarian language is quite common, would there be a Hungarian name as well? I doubt it. The reference to the engineer team that designed a station is a shaky one too. What if a German firm was hired to design the station, would that merit a German translation as well? I suggest, we put all political preferences aside, and stay true to what Kyiv city officials actually call their metro stations. Here is the official site of the Kyiv metropoliten [5]. If you can find a name of the station in Russian, by all means put it in there. Otherwise, let's not invent things and look for all odd places to suit political preferences. Please stay true to the only verifiable (WP:Verifiability) source on the issue.--Hillock65 19:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction on Hillock's statement there are a few flaws. First of all six cities in Ukraine gave Russian a special status in the course of the past year alone (Kharkov, Donetsk, Lugansk, Odessa and Sevastopol), as well as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea has Russian as one of three official languages. The website, if one examines the newsflashes then Russian periodically appears as well. (for example 28.04.07). Thirdly Kiev Architectural Union is not a firm, nor is it Russian owned, it is essentially the body which approves the designs for any constructions built in Kiev. This body is state and official, yet its website is exclussively in Russian. Finally what is If you can find a name of the station in Russian? How about a 1980s plan (as the line was well in planning before Ukraine's independence)? Here you go [6], see the attached map at the bottom [7]. Finally I suggest that we really do put political differences aside and respect the Russian speakers in Kiev, and the people who write these articles. Last but not least there is no clause in WP:NC that prohibits adding a language which the whole city speaks. --Kuban Cossack 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction to Kuban kazak above: Hillock65 was referring to the Kiev/Kyiv area. I don't see Kiev mentioned in your comment above referring to special status. — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Hillock said and I quote Russian language doesn't have any status neither in Ukraine. In Kiev 17 years of forceful Ukrainization had no affect on its population in what language they speak. That is the bottom line. In any case your original argument was that this line is only known by its Ukrainian name, other lines were known by their Russian names because of the Soviet regime, is invalid as my Kiev Arch Union and references to the line appearing in Soviet times plans. The other reasons are pure political controversies which frankly, wikipedia should avoid. --Kuban Cossack 20:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Now here's my Arch Union source: http://archunion.com.ua/img/2007/05/s_05_001.jpg. Now excuse me, but I have no idea where you see the Russian on it. As for Russian status in eastern Ukraine, it is against the Constitution, but we won't discuss that. We are discussing Kiev, not Kharkiv. — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The map was not drawn by Arch Union, it was done by a private printing company for all I care. The main page and all subpages are in Russian. --Kuban Cossack 20:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You should care, it was done by the Kiev planning department, which has more official status than Arch Union. — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice, Kiyevproyekt actually has a Russian version in development ;) --Kuban Cossack 20:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Same with English, doesn't mean anything. — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

But it does mean this: if Russian was the primary language of Kiev, then the Russian site would be developed first. There goes your statement about Kiev only speaking Russian. — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If it was the primary language of Kiev I think I would be pushing for the article to be renamed to Podolsko-Voskresenskaya Line. I am happy with the Ukrainian title of it, just leave the Russian in the lead, it does come after the Ukrainian not before it. --Kuban Cossack 20:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And the point of having the Russian name in the article is..? I don't see the point. It is almost the equivalent of putting Spanish names for every subway station in Los Angeles. — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I could not care less what happens in Los Angeles. The point is that the press, the people, official bodies use that name. It is not one that is irrelevant to the city or to the metro. --Kuban Cossack 20:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Los Angeles has a huge hispanic population. The only difference is that English doesn't have an official status in the U.S., while Ukrainian has official status in Ukraine. Now if Wikipedia accepts a de-facto national language, why should it have trouble accepting an official national language? — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What? Are you saying to rename the article as the Podil-Sunday Line or the Podil-Resurrection Line? Now that is just nonsense --Kuban Cossack 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said or even thought that. I said that Wikipedia recognizes de-facto languages of countries, so that means it also recognizes official languages. Which means Russian has no place in the article. — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I still fail to see a de-facto English language. In that case should it not recognize the de-facto language of Kiev?--~

There is no de-facto language of Kiev. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

True, Russian is recognized as one that dominates Kiev. Which why it needs no special status, proving invincible to Ukrainization we can only strengthen its position, unless of course you have political nationalist sentiments which drive you in removing it. --Kuban Cossack 21:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In case you don't know, let me explain. United States doesn't have an official language. But the de-facto national language is English. English Wikipedia has no trouble recognizing it and treats it as though it is official. Now why then do we treat Ukrainian, which is even more than a de-facto language of Ukraine, as a language with no official status? — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case should Russian also not qualify for the same rationale as the language with no official status.--Kuban Cossack 22:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Hillock65 has a sound argument. I'll wait to hear what Adrian M. H. has to say. — Alex^(U|C|E) 19:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Indent

(Reset indent) Well, this seems to be getting muddier rather than clearer. I will continue to try to assume good faith on everyone's part, but I must admit that I had just a slight concern about vested interests and POV, and it seems to me that this subject might be affected by that. From my perspective, I know little of Ukraine's history other than its place in the former Soviet Union and – from my own interest – its place in the military history of WW2, so I'm not too familiar with the finer points of the current language situation. I'd like to get an outside expert's view of this, but I doubt if that would be easy to find at this time. Hillock65 does appear to have a quite sound argument, but Kuban Cossack's arguments appear to be sound as well. That said, I don't think that a source from prior to independence is necessarily going to be a fair reflection of the current situation. I still have my concerns about the sensitivity of a debate about the status of Ukraine's languages. Hillock65's point that referred to Hungarian as an example is quite compelling, because that demonstrates that we are not talking about a dual-language country, but a multi-language country. I can see serious practical issues with including a version of each station's name in each and every language, partly for practicality, but also because that is wide open to continued debate about what languages to include and which articles should mention them. I have learned from past experience that an all-or-nothing approach can be a blunt but effective solution in this situation, whereby you either list all relevant languages on all articles or none at all. That relates also to the point I made earlier about consistency (which tends to bring with it a better degree of fairness). I cannot really make an all-out recommendation to remove references to Russian names from the affected articles, but I will point out that the deciding factor in an all-or-nothing consistent approach is which choice is likely to cause the least offense to interested parties (not just us editors, but the casual readers as well): having the names in all relevant languages or just in Ukrainian? What are your thoughts on that? Adrian M. H. 20:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, having them all in Ukrainian wouldn't be such a huge step backward. The official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian, but Ukrainian is similar enough to Russian so that a Russian looking at the article could tell that the station/line is in fact the same. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Hungarian example is not the same, first of all ethnic Russians make up ~fifth of Kiev, but Russian-speaking people (not only Ukrainians, but other minorities such as Jews and Tatars) make up to as much as 95% of the population. That is just the way it is in Kiev, it is a unique place in that way (well most ex-Soviet capitals and large cities show the same trend). Whilst Hungarian speakers are limited to the ethnic Hungarian minorities. In the deadlock here, the all or none is suitable for me. --Kuban Cossack

I'm a Russian-speaking Ukrainian myself, and I don't see what the big deal with this dispute is. Ukrainian is the official language of Ukraine, period. There are too many other minority languages to be mentioned elsewhere. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well you started the dispute, there are minority languages and there is language that majority speaks. In Kiev that language is Russian. --Kuban Cossack 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The dispute was resolved until you changed the article without discussing first. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A dispute is resolved when all parties have had their chance to contribute, just because I saw article later than you does not mean that I was not entitled to edit it the way I pleased. More over of the five edits you made, all were nothing but removal of the half a line of text, I actually contributed to the article's main text body (which essentially meant re-writing it and de-stubbing it)--Kuban Cossack 21:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Same as the example I gave about Los Angeles. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if someone wants to add Spanish to Los Angeles subway, as far as I am concerned they are welcome to.--Kuban Cossack 21:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I was even considering making a Wikipedia guideline for this situation in Ukraine-related articles. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a WP:NC policy which is universal for all articles. --Kuban Cossack 21:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

NC is not specific enough to keep disputes like Kiev-Kyiv from breaking out. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, it has a sub-policy WP:NC(UE) which keeps the Kyivisators at bay.--Kuban Cossack 21:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Kyiv is the official English name for Ukraine's capital "Kyyiv". — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Whilst Kiev is the English name for th city "Kiyev". --Kuban Cossack 22:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No Kiev, there's only Kyiv. There is no "Kiyev" either. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If we can reach a consensus, that should be enough to influence future cases because of the value that is placed on past consensus and precedences. WP:NC is not entirely suitable to this issue. One thing that I forgot to include in my last post: Relating to the third question in my first post, if the station signs and official public documentation (such as timetables) use only Ukrainian for station names – Kuban Cossack has not confirm this either way, but his reply suggests that this is the case – then I think that might be another point in favour of using only the Ukrainian names in these articles. Wikipedia tends towards favouring the real-world usage where possible. Adrian M. H. 21:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Does real-world usage include this a Russian timetable? --Kuban Cossack 21:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that's a fan site, not the official site. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of that site, however: Ukrainian, and only Ukrainian, name of station on the wall: [8]. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There you go, Russian name on the wall. --Kuban Cossack 21:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And how long ago was that photo taken? — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Last year, the -дь was still there--Kuban Cossack 21:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

When I went there last year (and I'm going back this year), everything was in Ukrainian. Even the station announcements over the intercom. Not a word in Russian. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And the driver would then interrupt and in Russian say "Четвертой вагон, хватет держать двери"--Kuban Cossack 21:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And that has official status how? One Russian-speaking engineer, big deal. As for the wall, maybe it's still there, but it's just one station. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Soviet regime. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian on an old metro station wall: [9]. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What difference does that make when was it built? And it is not one engineer, ask any driver or station manager...--Kuban Cossack 21:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It makes a difference. Tell me, how often do engineers make those announcements? Not that often, they mostly deliver an automatic message. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition to that, going back to my Los Angeles example. How many workers do you think speak Spanish in the LA Rapid Transit system? A lot. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, I do not care about LA, if they want to add Spanish then so be it. What do I care?--Kuban Cossack 22:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a similar situation. Russian shouldn't be used in Ukrainian articles. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not! The articles are titled in Ukrainian anyway, why are you so keen on its removal? Do you hate the language you yourself speak? --Kuban Cossack 22:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My arguments are listed above, do you want me to restate them every time? — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want arguments, I want solutions, Adrian suggested all or none. I am happy with either one, clearly for whatever personal reasons (jealousy towards Russians for being cooler???) you are not happy with the first one. Therefore I am offering you to purge both versions. --Kuban Cossack 22:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not what he suggested. He said either all minority languages or just Ukrainian. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case that is what I am suggesting, do you take it or not? --Kuban Cossack 22:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not, read my reasoning once again. Ukrainian is the official language of Ukraine... Sigh. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case it is a deadlock, thanks for being very uncompromising on the dispute, what's stage on WP:DR?--Kuban Cossack 22:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not a deadlock just yet. Don't forget that this is one of the solutions proposed by Adrian. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A solution has to be universally accepted by all involved parties. WP:MEDCAB?--Kuban Cossack 22:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it up, let's not say more until we get a response...yawn...I am logging out, it is very late in the Kuban right now...Good night... --Kuban Cossack 22:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be able to contribute some more tomorrow evening. In the meantime, you should probably sleep on it for now, in case this gets a bit too heated. Adrian M. H. 22:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Answers and corrections

Let me contribute to the discussion by answering the initial questions:

1. The Ukraine article states only one official language. Is this correct?

   Yes. Ukrainian language is the only state language of Ukraine. The Constitution of Ukraine reads:

   The state language of Ukraine is the Ukrainian language. The State ensures the comprehensive development and functioning of the Ukrainian language in all spheres of social life throughout the entire territory of Ukraine. In Ukraine, the free development, use and protection of Russian, and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine, is guaranteed. The State promotes the learning of languages of international communication. The use of languages in Ukraine is guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and is determined by law.[10]

2. What proportion of the population – in Kiev itself and in the entire country – speak Russian as their first language?

   According to the latest census (2001), among Kiev residents, 2,111 thousand (82.2%) identified themselves as Ukrainians, 337 thousand (13.1%) - Russians, and 120 thousand (4.7%) - other nationalities. [11]. Among Ukrainians, 85.2% named Ukrainian language as the native language, and 14.8% called Russian language as native. Among Russians, 95.9% listed Russian as native, and 3.9% - Ukrainian. [12]. The numbers for Ukraine are essentially similar. [13],[14]

3. Does the Kiev underground system provide alternative place/station names in Russian, like one would expect to find in Wales or Hong Kong, for instance?

   No. Following the Ukrainian independence, Kiev City Administration (the metro is a municipal property) took steps to convert paper work, documentation, public records, etc. from bilingual (predominantly Russian) to Ukrainian. In the metro station signs, announcements, official maps have been exclusively in Ukrainian since early 1990s.

   In the same time, while the usage of Russian language is diminishing among Kiev residents, in daily life many speak Russian or a mixture of Ukrainian and Russian.

   Looking over internet, there are websites that feature Kiev metro in Russian language, with station names translated or transliterated into Russian. (A related question is: If Russian name of Ukrainian metro station is given in the English wikipedia, which Russian name should it be? For example, should it be Майдан Нэзалэжности [15], Майдан Независимости [16], or Площадь Независимости [17]? Should it be the most common name used by Russian residents of Kiev, or by Russians in Russia?). Also, there are websites describing Kiev metro in other languages, for example, in German. As well, there are likely to be publications and tourist guides in many languages that include a map or description of Kiev metro. In fact, as of now the article Kiev Metro is given in the wikipedia in 18 languages.

I'd like also to point out some misleading information in the above discussion.

1. It was stated that Kiev Architectural Union "is state and official", and the fact that union's website is exclusively in Russian was used as an argument that Russian language is used by the city administration. In reality, the union is a limited liability company (товариство з обмеженою відповідальністю) as it stated at the union website main page. It's official (in the sense that it's not illegal), however the union is not part of the city or the state.
2. Lva Tolstoho station is named after famous Russian writer Leo Tolstoy, and inside the station its name on the wall is given in Russian. This is the only known exception of the station signs being exclusively in Ukrainian. The exception by itself is unlikely to validate the need to provide Russian names for all stations in the English wikipedia. --Novelbank 01:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed resolution

Okay, after thinking about it for a while, here is my proposition (I will post it to MedCab when it gets going):

• All articles about historical places (such as cities, example Kiev, Lviv, Kharkiv should be named after their official names (Kyiv, Lviv, Kharkiv) and should include names in the lead-in in different languages that are well-known (See beginning of Kiev article for example)
• All articles about historically insignificant parts of the city (such as transportation systems) should be named after their Ukrainian names and should only include the Ukrainian translations of their names, regardless of location in Ukraine

I hope this proposition goes through. — Alex^(U|C|E) 23:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected the article for 2 weeks. Please work out the dispute here, on the talk page, in the interim. If you come to a consensus before the 2 weeks, let me know or go to WP:RFPP and the page can be unprotected early. MastCell ^Talk 22:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Official name of the 4th line?

Hello, I'm responsible for the Chinese version of the Kiev Metro articles. When I checked the official site of Kiev Metro in the Prospects page they address the 4th to be "Подільсько-Вигурівська лінія" rather than "Подільсько-Воскресенська лінія". I know the phrase Воскресенська covered from other sources of map but I'm asking for an answer to relieve the confusion. thx -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Vygurivśka

I think the page should be renamed to "Podilsko-Vygurivska" as in Ukrainian it is written "Подільсько-Виґурівська" and it comes from "Виґурівщина". Thanks --Sir-nik (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Подільсько-Вигурівська лінія.--Юе Артеміс (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kalininsko-Solntsevskaya Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)