Talk:Square of Contracts (Kyiv)

Contract's Square?
First of all, great article, thanks for putting it together. :)

Regarding the literal translation, I am not sure if Contract's Square is correct. I believe the meaning in Ukrainian is "a place of contracts" -> "a place where contracts are signed/made". If that is the case, then it should probably be called either "Square of Contracts" or "Contract Square". -- mno 22:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yes I agree, because right now the name sounds like the square is dedicated to contracts, but it is as you said: a place of contracts" -> "a place where contracts are signed/made. Thanks for bringing this up, —dima /sb.tk/ 23:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! Again, thanks for the great article! -- mno 03:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Kontraktova Square sounds like mix of two languages. It should be Kontraktova Ploshcha or Contract Square. In Ukrainian no one calls Times Square as Times Ploshcha. Compare to Piazza della Signoria or Pariser Platz. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Original Name
In the article, you write "...the square was renamed to its historic original name...". By original name in that sentance, do you mean Kontraktova or Alexandrovska? It's a bit confusing. -- mno 03:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've posted a comment on the Ukrainian encyclopaedia here - it sounds very confusing there as well, and I am not 100% sure that it's correct. I heard that the name Krasnaya originally came not from the Communist Revolution, but rather from the fact that the square looked red because of all the merchants that set up shops on it during the Tzarist times. -- mno 03:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What I meant was Kontraktova. I haven't heard about Krasnaya coming from merchants setting up shops on it during the Tzarist times, but it would be interesting information for the article if it were true. I'll ask my friends and relatives in Kiev, and see if they heard of the info; as well as look on the web.  —dima /sb.tk/ 04:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm also not really sure how correct what I heard is (about merchants), but that is one version I heard from a friend while in Kiev this May. Since the original historic name is Kontraktova, I think it should be mentioned at the beginning of that paragraph that the square was originally called Kontraktova because of [...]. I propose the following version:


 * The name Kontraktova dates back to the 1800s, when merchants set up shops on the square and contracts were signed here. The square was renamed several times during its history:
 * Between 1869-1919, the square was named in honour of the Russian Tzar Alexander II - Aleksandrovskaya Square (Alexandar's Square);
 * Between 1919-1944 - Krasnaya Square (Red Square), dedicated to Communism;
 * Between 1945 and the 1950s, it was renamed back to Kontraktova, although Krasnaya continued to be widely used;
 * In 1990, the original name was re-established.


 * I don't like my initial sentance very much, and not sure if a list is required, but it's a start. -- mno 13:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about including why the name is Kontraktova in the beginning of the article. But I'd rather have combined sentence listing the former names, instead of a list. —dima /sb.tk/ 15:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think I prefer a sentence, also. How about we take the following then:


 * "The name Kontraktova dates back to _date_, when merchants set up shops and signed contracts on the square. The square was renamed several times during its history: between 1869-1919, the square was named in honour of the Russian Tzar Alexander II - Aleksandrovskaya Square (Alexandar's Square); between 1919-1944 - Krasnaya Square (Red Square), dedicated to Communism; between 1945 and the 1950s, it was renamed back to Kontraktova, although Krasnaya continued to be widely used; in 1990, the original name was re-established."


 * The only thing is we need to find a verifiable date, or remove it from the sentence. However, removing it would be awkward as it makes logical sense to list a date when talking about historical events. -- mno 15:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks fine. But yes, a verifiable date would be preferable. I don't think there are very many places where we can find the correct dates: I looked in all my Kiev books and found just the info that is currently in the article. So, should we just keep the years as is? Because, as you say, it will look weird w/o years.—dima /sb.tk/ 18:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Or, we can state 1800s, and add a [citation needed] request to that date. -- mno 19:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine to me. —dima /sb.tk/ 20:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)