Talk:Ochakiv

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Requested move

Ochakiv is the official name of the town, while Ochakov is one of the historical names.--NightOnEarth 18:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose: 1) Ochakov is situated in the 100% Russophone area; 2) The town is known in English primarily in connection with its siege by Russians, when it was officially known as Ochakov. --Ghirlandajo 18:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

1) While I agree that Russian is the language of the majority there, it's nowhere close to 100% even in cities like Odessa and Mykolaiv, much less outside of big cities. Anyway, it doesn't seem to matter for cities like Mykolaiv, for which the Ukrainian spelling is used. 2) If you google the name "Ochakiv", you will see lots of travel sites, etc. If you search for "Ochakov" you will see more historical websites. I'm relatively new and don't know whether Google hits matter much, but in this case it's 28k-22k in favour of Ochakiv. I am aware of the idiotic revert war for Kiev and don't want to start something like that, but for the sake of accuracy, I think the spelling of the existing resort town is preferable over the spelling of a historical fortress. --NightOnEarth 20:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose, I think some towns should be left as they're known in the English-speaking world. KNewman 19:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support, while names such as Kiev or Odessa can genuinely be considered English exonyms, Ochakov doesn't rise to that level -- it's a transliteration of the Russian. For consistency, all Ukrainian towns should carry their Ukrainian or official name. However, perhaps the title line should be changed to better recognize the older form. E.g., Ochakiv, formerly Ochakov (Ukrainian: Очаків, Očakiv; Russian: Очаков, Očakov; Crimean Tatar/Turkish: Özi) is a town of 16900 inhabitants... user:LuiKhuntek

• support move. This is very much the same case as Chernihiv, a place, relatively obscure, to have an established English spelling in the modern usage. Therefore, the article should be titled by the official local name transliterated into English. This (also like in Chernihiv) in no way prevents from using the historical name in the appropriate context, particulalry for the times of Imperial Russia. Finally, what language the locals speak is irrelevant for this dispute. The article's title is always an official local name, unless there is an established English name that is different. --Irpen 21:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support. The vast majority of Ukrainian city articles are listed by their Ukrainian name. The only exceptions that I am aware of would be for English names like "Kiev". What was the logic in redirecting Ochakiv to Özi? Olessi 21:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record: Kiev isn't the only exception. Odessa is another one. There may be more that don't pop up in my head right now. --Irpen 16:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Weak support, as I always support the move to current name used by the administration. It's simply easier and such solution fixes many of the endless naming disputes. BTW, I believe that the name of Ochakov could be mentioned and even bolded in the header. Halibutt 17:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support - use whatever the names is now. 129.252.70.25 22:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support --AndriyK 11:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Support Didn't we decide that all cities in present Ukraine except Kyiv are to be named in Ukrainian on Wiki? --Bryndza 02:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Generally, yes. Just FYI, there are more exceptions: Odessa, Eupatoria, maybe more, but not much. So, you're basically right. --Irpen 02:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Result

Moved. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)