Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine
Ukraine Project‑class | |||||||
|
This WikiProject has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 |
Old noticeboard archives, etc.: 1, 2, 3, 4, early article announcements (with archives), early article announcements talk |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
- Help requests
You can leave your requests here. Please add new sections at the bottom with your signature so that the request will have the date included.
New settlement type
So I've initially raised this concern in the Krasna Hora talk page, but I guess this is a more appropriate place to ask about it as it potentially impacts hundreds of articles. I've just checked a similar discussion from 30 November 2023 and the classification changes still seemed inconclusive back then (no change in practice). Therefore, I'll quote my original concern:
@Ykvach: Do you have proof/evidence that Krasna Hora would now be considered a "rural settlement" and not a "village"? Because from what I understood from the new, late 2023, law is that a settlement with less than 5k people would become a village. By the way, did any specific change even become official? Because it's one thing to approve a new principle, it's another to implement it in reality. We should at least have a total number of villages and rural settlements under this new classification. Otherwise this would seem like
Alternativelly, is it too early to make such massive changes throughout Wikipedia?
- @ping me] 02:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)]
- The fact is there are no urban-type settlements in Ukraine anymore. If the government makes more subtle classification, for example, upgrades some to cities, we will upgrade the articles. We recently had a long discussion about it, with a few participants, but I do not remember where it was. Ymblanter (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still split on this... I would greatly appreciate if you linked the previous discussion. Do you remember at least if it was in this project space or a random settlement talk page? ping me] 05:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)]
- I guess it was on one of the more general talk pages, Populated places in Ukraine or smth similar. Ymblanter (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Furthermore, if you guys are making interim decisions, why not already adopt the 5k people village-settlement threshold? Or at least word the change as an implication instead of an official fact? ping me] 06:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)]
- If there is a law in force about 5k I will be happy to update the articles. Ymblanter (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean? It's literally stated in ping me] 21:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)]
- I would like to see some sources that this has been implemented. Ukraine is infamous for not complying with their own laws at all levels. Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- xD ping me] 15:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)]
- The law doesn't exactly work exactly as written. All villages, rural settlements, cities keep their status, but the law introduces certain thresholds that settlements need to reach to change status. The process of up/downgrading the status must be initiated by the local council. Shwabb1 (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting. So the urban-type to rural settlement is automatic, but the redistribution among villages and rural settlements is gradual and on a case-by-case basis? ping me] 17:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)]
- Yes. For example, Slobozhanske Settlement Council, after a local survey, sent a request to the Verkhovna Rada to upgrade the status from rural settlement to city. In the document they sent it is noted that the current population is estimated to be 12,329 with predominantly (~90%) multi-storey housing, which means that Slobozhanske passes both population and population density thresholds. Shwabb1 (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Cool! ping me] 04:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)]
- Cool!
- Yes. For example, Slobozhanske Settlement Council, after a local survey, sent a request to the Verkhovna Rada to upgrade the status from rural settlement to city. In the document they sent it is noted that the current population is estimated to be 12,329 with predominantly (~90%) multi-storey housing, which means that Slobozhanske passes both population and population density thresholds. Shwabb1 (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting. So the urban-type to rural settlement is automatic, but the redistribution among villages and rural settlements is gradual and on a case-by-case basis?
- xD
- I would like to see some sources that this has been implemented. Ukraine is infamous for not complying with their own laws at all levels. Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean? It's literally stated in
- I am not sure why you called this an interim decision. A law entered in force, and there are sources which describe the implementation. Ymblanter (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Interim because the official classification will likely have quite a few differences. ping me] 21:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)]
- Interim because the official classification will likely have quite a few differences.
- If there is a law in force about 5k I will be happy to update the articles. Ymblanter (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still split on this... I would greatly appreciate if you linked the previous discussion. Do you remember at least if it was in this project space or a random settlement talk page?
- The fact is there are no urban-type settlements in Ukraine anymore. If the government makes more subtle classification, for example, upgrades some to cities, we will upgrade the articles. We recently had a long discussion about it, with a few participants, but I do not remember where it was. Ymblanter (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
@
- It is not recognized by Russia, obviously. Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Then the articles should mention that (that de facto they're still considered urban-type), of course. ping me] 20:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)]
- I tried to insert similar things in the past, I encountered a pushback from a bunch of users telling me that what Russia thinks about the territories it controls is irrelevant. Some of these users eventually got blocked indef / banned, but others are still around. Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- ping me] 00:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)]
- Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but AFAIK the exact designation does not actually matter that much in the law of either country. Therefore the way I would recommend writing these articles would be to not mention the settlement types prominently in the first place. Then somewhere in the article body, we can mention briefly that the designation of the settlement is disputed. Example: "Ukraine, which is internationally recognized as having sovereignty over [name of place], designates it a rural-type settlement. However, Russia, which illegally occupies [name of place], de facto administrates it as an urban-type settlement". This is similar to what I've already done in a lot of articles about occupied places where the raion is disputed, because the raions were never really important either.
- By the way, does anyone actually have the relevant law about urban-type settlements in Russia? I've taken a look at the relevant section at urban-type settlement but was not able to really parse it in a useful way. I don't doubt the overall premise that Russia doesn't recognize the changes, but I think it might be useful to double-check what exactly the Russian classifications are. HappyWith (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
not mention the settlement types prominently in the first place
How should we write the first sentence of the articles though? Because they're mostly: "[place name] is a [settlement_type] in [administrative subdivisions], Ukraine." Should we just say the generic settlement in the first place and then go deeper somewhere else?- Furthermore, I would be more careful with overgeneralizations and negative connotations in the explainer paragraph. For example, "which is internationally recognized..." implies all countries recognize the Ukrainian control. Pretty sure not all countries were fond of the way Ukraine handled the separatism in those regions. Further ahead, "illegally" unnecessarily give a heavy negative value judgment on Russia. "Occupies" already implies that, and we don't need to go into a short analysis of legality, who's right or wrong, evil or not, in every settlement article. Especially since Ukraine did illegal things too. Just gotta keep the text dry and with neutral wording.
but I think it might be useful to double-check what exactly the Russian classifications are.
Do you mean in Russia or Donbas? I think that if we simply say they don't recognize the new law, then we can get away with simply implying that whatever was the old type still stands, unless they themselves have changed it since.ping me] 17:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)]Should we just say the generic settlement in the first place and then go deeper somewhere else?
- Yeah, that's what I was thinking. As for your criticisms of the connotations and generalizations, the exact wording doesn't really matter, it was just the general gist I was trying to get across, which I think we agree on.
Do you mean in Russia or Donbas?
I was under the impression Russia mostly adopted the laws of the LPR and DPR when it annexed those regions. You're probably right that the specifics aren't that important here. HappyWith (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Russian classifier, OKATO, would indicate that urban-type settlements remain urban-type settlements. One could argue that that document is outdated, but at least we have a basis to assert that the latest Russian understanding is that they are urban-type. In fact, it seems that all Ukrainian changes are ignored, for example Bakhmut is still referred to as Artemovsk in the document.
- With this in mind, I argue that for the sake of WP:NPOVthe classifications of both parties should be equally displayed (no footnotes for the Russian POV) in infoboxes and text, but with the Ukrainian classification appearing first for the sake of notability, larger recognition and because order can be more arbitrary. "de facto" and "de jure" should not always (maybe the 2024 captures are still not "de jure" for Russia, idk) be used because the occupied towns are also both "de facto" and "de jure" following the Russian classification in the Russian and local POV. Therefore, the different classifications should be distinguished by "per Russia/Ukraine" or "according to Russia/Ukraine".
- It should not be solely stated that those settlements "were" considered urban-type as that is only for the Ukrainian POV. So the explanations should also be amended. I also propose to revive the old category as it is still helpful for historic purposes and to respect WP:NPOV. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)]
- Or god forbid, time could be spent on something more productive. TylerBurden (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm mostly trying to build a consensus at this stage, in case isolated editors complain in the future.
- Btw, it's easy to say "why bother" when the current state is already favorable to the person. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Or god forbid, time could be spent on something more productive. TylerBurden (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to insert similar things in the past, I encountered a pushback from a bunch of users telling me that what Russia thinks about the territories it controls is irrelevant. Some of these users eventually got blocked indef / banned, but others are still around. Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Then the articles should mention that (that de facto they're still considered urban-type), of course.