Talk:Transcarpathia

Relation between the scope of this article and its title
It seems that current title ("Carpathian Ruthenia") and current scope of this article are at odds with each other. Content of this article is focused on Ruthenian territories on the inner side of Carpathians, or more precisely, the focus is on Ruthenian regions that are approximately corresponding to the territory of modern Zakarpattia Oblast. And there lies the problem: the term "Carpathian Ruthenia" has much wider meaning, since it also covers Ruthenian territories on the outer side of Carpathians. In other words, we should make some choices. If we want to keep the current title, then we should widen the scope of this article, by including additional content related to Ruthenian territories on both sides of Carpathians, thus covering the entire territory of Carpathian Ruthenia. On the other hand, if we want to keep the current focus of this article on Ruthenian territories on the inner side of Carpathian Mountains, then we should adjust the title in accordance with the real scope of this article's content. In that case, the title could be changed, but there comes the question, into what? First choices that come to mind are terms like "Subcarpathian Ruthenia" and "Transcarpathian Ruthenia" but both of those terms are relative in nature, since they are used as descriptive designations for Ruthenian territories on inner or outer sides of the Carpathians, depending on a point of observation and local customary uses, that differ significantly. There is another, neutral solution, based on geographical terminology. Since this article is focused on Ruthenian territories on the inner side of Carpathians, its title could be changed into "Inner Carpathian Ruthenia" or something like that. Such title would reflect the real scope of this article, and it would be based on geographical terminology, thus avoiding the use of relative terms that are coined with ambiguous (sub-/trans-) prefixes. My choice would be to keep the current title, but widen the scope of this article, by including additional content related to all territories of Carpathian Ruthenia. Sorabino (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would choose to rename the article then in case, since the term and the current content clearly is associated with the historical region inside of the former Kingdom of Hungary, inside it's classic borders (or today with Zakarpattya Oblast) (as you would say, inner of the Carpathians). Thus, I would doubt that addig "inner" would be a proper solution, Subcarpathian or Transcarpathian Ruthenia would be more feasible.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC))
 * Yes, that would be an easier solution, and it would reflect the current scope of the article's content, but it would still require some serious editing in various sections, including the lead. I am aware that term "Inner Carpathian Ruthenia" is primarily geographical, but if we should have to chose between alternative terms, like Subcarpathian Ruthenia and Transcarpathian Ruthenia, then I would support the term "Subcarpathian Ruthenia" since it corresponds more directly to the original term Subcarpathian Rus' (Підкарпатьска Русь). Sorabino (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Subcarpathian Ruthenia is ok with me.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC))

Objectivity, sources
The page generally lacks sources at almost every topic, resulting in the information being very one-sided. Objectivity can also be questioned, as anything Hungary-related is considered "contested", while paragraphs based on Czechoslovak/Soviet/Ukrainian opinions are mentioned as they were facts. Zsovar24 (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Clutter & Other Names for Carpathian Ruthenia
User:Blindlynx I understand why you removed the additional languages from the passage below to reduce clutter. However, it's my opinion that they should still be included considering the history of diversity of the area.

One idea is to cut it down to the following, emphasizing the bordering countries, while also cutting it down a bit...

I'm personally not a fan of using efn in this context...maybe a separate section on nomenclature or similar would be better. Let me know if you have a better idea. --💬 KaerbaqianRen 04:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey! I went per MOS:LEADLANG, that honestly isn't followed a whole lot. I agree efn isn't great in this context.  Perhaps a names section like Lviv has would work, admittedly a few names are listed in the lead itself there though.  It would allow for a little more detail about what they mean as well.


 * Also, I think we should include 'Підкарпатьска Русь' or 'Підкарпатя' in whatever we decide on—blindlynx 14:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I put in your proposal as a temporary thing until we can agree on something better—blindlynx 21:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Coat of arms
As best I can tell, the cost of arms used by the Oblast is slightly different from the one used by the Republic, notably the bear's head is different. Is this true or am I imagining things? Kelvinnkat (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * what are you basing this on?—blindlynx 02:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As a long-time student of heraldry, I would remark that in heraldic terms, this would be insignificant. Official descriptions (blazons) of arms describe arrangements, objects and colours, but allow wide scope for artistic interpretation and do not prescribe non-essential details exactly.
 * Some official bodies or corporate organisations might demand only a very particular version of their arms be used, but this is a relatively modern innovation: it may or may not be the case here. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.249.29.80 (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 12 May 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved with two supports. There ain't any oppose since a suggestion was made and can be done later. For the time being, per nominator and consensus. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 04:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Carpathian Ruthenia → Transcarpathia – Each time I want to get to this article I first get to the Transcarpathia disambiguation page and later think why is this article titled this way. "Transcarpathia" is overwhelmingly the most WP:COMMONNAME for this region. I simply do not see it in use today outside of Wikipedia.

Transcarpathia has 16,300 Google Scholar results while Carpathian Ruthenia has 8,530. Transcarpathia is far more popular than Carpathian Ruthenia as shown by Google Ngrams. Britannica has a topic for Transcarpathia and no page for Carpathian Ruthenia. I can hardly find news related to the invasion of Ukraine about the region under the name of Carpathian Ruthenia. Under the name of Transcarpathia we find news from several major media outlets. Super  Ψ   Dro  10:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  Toadette Edit! 14:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * After looking at Google Scholar, there seems like a historical difference: The Austria–Hungary and Czechoslovak period at least through the end of WWII is more often called "Carpathian Ruthenia" but the present-day region is now mostly referred to as "Transcarpathia" as you suggest. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems most readers are looking for the obalst based on, a deeper issue seems to be that the scope of this article is ostensibly historically but not in a particularly well defined period. It would make more sense to just make this article about the region and it's history no?—blindlynx 13:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what the page is about? Super   Ψ   Dro  15:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * not really as it currently stands it's mostly talking about it pre-1991 with a few demographic mentions of the 2001 census—blindlynx 23:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.