Talk:Rugby union in Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 00:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union in the Ukraine → Rugby union in Ukraine — Ukraine is the name of the country, not the Ukraine. See Sport in Ukraine, Economy of Ukraine, etc. —84.92.117.93 (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in English "the Ukraine" is perfectly acceptable - it sounds bizarre to me to refer to "Ukraine" instead of "the Ukraine". It's not something I'd ever say, anymore than I'd refer to "the Poland", or "Atlantic" instead of "the Atlantic". I believe "Ukraine" means "Frontier", which sounds strange without an article in English. However, since Ukrainian DOESN'T actually have any articles (as in "the"), like most other Slavic languages, it doesn't matter anyway. Who the hell decides these things anyway?--MacRusgail (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that a bit antiquated? I've seen Ukraine referred to as the Ukraine in historical texts and speeches and the like, but never in any contemporary sources or speech. Since this is is the English Wikpedia, I don't think the word's original eptymology or features of Ukranian and Russian really matter here. In any case, the name of Ukraine article provides evidence that the definitive article is little used nowadays, and it makes no sense to have this article any different from other Ukranian related articles. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you were talking about "the Argentine" instead of "Argentina", I'd agree. However, it's nonsense to say "the Ukraine" rarely used now. It's the form more commonly used in my experience.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not in mine. In London at least, people don't talk about the Ukraine any more than they talk about the France. See below for evidence. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The France" has never been used in modern English, but "The Ukraine" most certainly is. Even in London! --MacRusgail (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, "the Ukraine" is simply not the most common term for the country anymore. Even if a minority still use it (just like a minority still talk about "the Sudan" to refer to Sudan) it is clearly not the most commonly used name of the country anymore. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Typical usage, this is obvious. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment surely by this token we should move Las Vegas to Vegas, since that's how some people refer to it, obviously.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in Ukraine" is the commonly accepted usage today; "in the Ukraine" is generally considered obsolete. The former is also standard on Wikipedia - in fact this seems to be the only holdout at "in the Ukraine" as opposed to hundreds at "in Ukraine". Interplanet Janet (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is certainly not obsolete at all. Google is no real reference, and I wish Wikipedians would stop acting as if it were. That kind of thing makes Wikipedia a joke.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "in the Ukraine" is perfectly good English usage, better in fact than "in Ukraine".--MacRusgail (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ukraine is clear demonstrably more commonly used than the Ukraine and it makes no sense to have this article different from every other Ukranian-related article on Wikipedia. To quote from the name of Ukraine article:

In English, the country was formerly usually referred to with the definite article, that is, the Ukraine (as in the Netherlands, the Gambia, the Bronx, the Congo, and sometimes the Sudan), and sometimes still is. However, usage without the article is now more frequent,[1] and has become established in journalism and diplomacy since the country's independence (for example, within the style guides of The Economist [1], The Guardian [2] and The Times [3]). The use of the definite article is standard in German (die Ukraine), although this is generally required for all non-neuter place names.

84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That same article makes the nonsensical claim that "the Ukraine" has fallen completely out of use. That's reliable old Wikipedia for you. What do we expect when we use a commercial search engine as an academic reference?! --MacRusgail (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper style guides are reliable sources. This move request is not based upon search engine results. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Regardless of which phrasing may be used by the individual people posting here, it's clear that "in Ukraine" has been established as the standard on Wikipedia. Nobody has suggested any reason why this article title should be treated differently from others. Propaniac (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

References

  1. ^ “Ukraine” (2008), in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, retrieved November 18, 2008.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rugby_union_in_Ukraine&oldid=1205128900"