Talk:Khreshchatyk/Archive 1

Hi everybody. I've suggested Khreschatyk for DYK and going to suggest it for the FA (although never did that before). Please help editing and promoting with whatever you can do and as soon as you can (as you know, DYK can't wait). Remember: UA articles should be promoted whatever it takes, and the street page is a perfect (hopefully conflict-free) candidate for it. Thanks, Ukrained 23:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All? UA-editors want article to be presented on DYK

BTW, Ghirlandajo has changed my initial introduction on the DYK to, as he states, point specific facts. In my opinion, the result of his change was making the introduction less interesting, boring. Whatever Ghirlandajo's problems with Orange Revolution are, it is the main UA-attraction for the rest of the world now. Let me cite our deep-shit President: Ukraine became fashionable - because of the revolution. It is the mere truth. So I suspect that Ghirlandajo's intention was to revenge that revolution in every possible way (even if the way is to prevent article from DYK). Who do you think he is if I'm right? And what should we do to him in that case?

I'm not going to revert the change - to make a test on the results of it, and on the UA-editing community's ability? to unite for common goals. Ukrained 21:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think your interpretion is correct, do not touch Ghirlandajo, this is not the place to act like that, fix the nom phrase. But I agree with the advertisement value and that we are going to fail the nomination this way. The street for some reason is less prominent than Maidan Nezalezhnosti in the media, probaly this is the DYK factor.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 21:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, please peace here. I BEG you guys. Let's concentrate on this very far from controversial topic to do something for Ukraine coverage on WP.

First, Ukrained and Bryndza, thank you for joining to a very small UA team here. We need more people who would write, like you are doing, rather than wage silly wars about Kyiv/Kiev. Second, please don't attack other users unless absolutely necessary. While Ghirla is definitely NOT the most polite Wikipedian, we don't want to alienate him from Ukrainian topics. Check how many Ukraine-related articles he wrote (not just edited) and thank him for that (Pochayiv Lavra is the most recent one). OTOH, DO argue with the user when he seems "wrong" to you of course, but I can assure you that he is not anti-Ukrainian. I had similar suspicions early on, but from my many experiences, this is a wrong impression. Unlike with some other editors, I was able to convince Ghirlandajo to agree on things that he first disagreed.

Now, to the topic. To put this article for DYK, we need a curious piece of Trivia. The street being named to something is not the best IMO. Who cares about why some street in an obscure corner of the earth (that it Ukraine yet for now) was named after something?

OTOH, the entire street being blown up by a retreating army is a notable event that would spark attention. The fact that radio-controlled mines were used there for the first time (if) would spark attention too. Also, its getting its name from Khreschata dolyna through which it now goes AND through which St. Vladimir herded Kievans into the Dnieper during the Baptism of Kiev is also notable. Something like that... Do you see my point?

Finally, thanks guys for the article. I was thinking about writing it myself and now will miss it from the list of article I created at my userpage, but I would certainly not write it as well as DDima, Ukrained and Bryndza. "Z Rizdvom" all of you! --Irpen 22:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, buzzwords do the job in marketing and academia, it is imperative that we choose the loudest one –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it was me, not Ghirla, who removed the Orange Revolution from the lead because, IMO, it doesn't belong to the lead of this article. It does belong to the lead of Maidan Nezalezhnosti article, because maidan's itself history is not so prominent as of Khreschatyk. Don't you think that Baptism of Kiev is more of a grand event for the history? I don't like the tend to overload the leads to make something more prominent because we like it seen but sacrificing the article's style. Similarly, I objected putting the info of suppression of Ukrainian language in the lead of the language article because it belongs to the history section and the lead should just place the language in the family map (my view did not prevail there for now). OTOH if "History of UA Lan" separate article is ever created, the suppression would belong to the lead.

If you can trust my word, please do believe that, personally, I very much supported the Orange Revolution. That I haven't put an Orange ribbon on my userpage to make it clear is still costing me when the likes of AndriyK scrutinize me to wage another campaign against their imagined "anti-Ukrainian mafia" of which I am one of the alleged coordinators. Sorry for using this page for, perhaps, not very much related rant.

Regarding "main" vs "best-known", I don't think that the concept of the "main" streat is applicable to the city of the scale of Kiev. I am not a native En-speaker, so I may be wrong. Also, Khreschatyk is rather short and very crowded. I won't call it a thoroughfare either, which would be Prospekt Peremogy or Kharkivske motorway. --Irpen 22:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Revolution is a buzzword - the readers of the front page would like to know more about it than anything else, I agree about the lead, fact is not the primary for the street and mentioned in the article - it is customary for DYK facts to be in the middle, I think "main" street is applicable. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 23:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Khreschatyk, the main street of Kiev, was named after ravines that used to cross the neighbourhood in the Middle Ages?
• ... that the Khreschatyk is the main street of Ukrainian capital Kiev on which Orange Revolution and other historical events mainly took place?

Ok lets discuss - here go the main failings of current proposals: First one IMHO has little apeal to an average reader, the second one is tautological (main street main events even the Orange Revolution which looks like a big demonstration on on main street and the main square :) ), I think we need someone more representative of English-speaking reader to comment–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so many options. I must say that it could use a little more pep than "named after crossing ravines". We could offer a couple of versions of the DYK text on the suggestion page, and let the administrators choose. How about something that features the variety (although maybe this version overdoes it). —Michael Z. 2006-01-9 04:00 Z

• ... that Kiev's historic street Khreschatyk, site of pivotal events during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, may have been the location of Ukraine's first mass baptism in 988, and was blown up by the retreating Soviet Red Army in 1941?

I am working on the article right now. Give me a little time. Please stand by or leave me a message/email. --Irpen 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, how about this for DYK:

• ... that Kiev's best-known street Khreschatyk, site of pivotal events during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, may owe its name to the events surrounding the mass baptism of Kievans in 988, and was blown up by the retreating Red Army in 1941 in what was the first in history set of explosions controlled over the radio from hundreds of kilometers away?

Please correct my English. Also, if too long, can we submit two? (Baptism and demolishing)? --Irpen 05:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we can, but be clear in edit summary that it is alternative spellings for older nomination, since there was an attempt to remove it already

• ... that Kiev's main street Khreschatyk, site of pivotal events during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, may owe its name to the events surrounding the mass baptism of Kievans in 988?

• ... that Kiev's main street Khreschatyk, site of pivotal events during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, in 1941 was blown up by the retreating Red Army in what was the first in history set of explosions controlled over the radio from hundreds of kilometers away?

Michael, I am sorry for loading you with another суспiльне доручення (community charge) but you as a many times DYK hitter is the best one for a job. Could you decide on the best variant for DYK and submit it properly? I say, both baptism and demolishing are very worthy. Should we submit a long one with both? Or two shorter ones? replace the old ones? I am out of my wiki time for the day. --Irpen 06:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. I'll try to include both and boil it down to the essentials. If there's a little bit left to the imagination, that will encourage click-throughs. —Michael Z. 2006-01-9 07:14 Z

• ... that Kiev's main street Khreschatyk, legendary pathway to the mass baptism of 988 and centre of Ukraine's famous Orange Revolution, had been demolished by the Red Army in 1941 by remote control?

I updated the DYK request page with this version. Must . . . sleep. . . . —Michael Z. 2006-01-9 07:17 Z

This is too far from FA, but it can be DYKed. For example, according to what I read somewhere, the buildings on the street were blown up by the Soviets through the Radio-controlled mines to inflict damage on the Nazi German military leadership who were supposed to move in them. This was the first known usage of the radio controlled mines. We need to check this story, add it to the article if confirmed, and propose at DYK. We have 72 hours since article's first appearance for that. --Irpen 02:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that Germans were first to use those radio... mines in remotely controlled miniature tanks. --Bryndza 04:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The legend about the radio-controlled mines is described here. It doesn't say clearly that the goal was to kill Nazis but it makes sense. Buildings aren't bridges or dams, so I am removing the "scortched earth" from the text. I have no time now to do some searching but we need something in this article that can be DYKable. --Irpen 07:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryndza, you're thinking of the German Goliath remote-controlled tracked land mine [1] (both cable and radio versions; no WP article!). I think Khreshchatyk was demolished with tons of conventional explosives, set off by radio-controlled fuses (Anatoly Kuznetsov wrote about this in Babi Yar, but I'd rather provide an academic reference).

"Scorched earth" means massive destruction of immobile resource (e.g. the landscape) by retreating military occupants, whether the tactic used effectively or senselessly. It implies indiscriminate destruction of things the enemy doesn't even control yet, as opposed to targeting their resources. I think it's a good description of the indiscriminate demolition of a historic city centre, even if we don't have a source attesting to the Soviets' precise intention. —Michael Z. 2006-01-8 07:21 Z

What I meant was that I remember seeing some source about the intention to kill high-ranked nazis who would occupy the most prestigeous area of the city. But I don't remember the source. Will look later. --Irpen 07:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleagues, let me humbly remind you that we're presenting the page for DYK first. So I think the most important for now is citing the source about such a sensitive issue as demolition of the city by its own army. When and if we reach DYK, let us continue the research regarding attempts on Nazi generals. I think it would be a great attraction for the FA-candidate page (when discussed here and refernced). Please don't forget priorities. Best wishes, Ukrained 20:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

We lack references heavily: most of us visited the street and need no sources. That's wrong for WP readers :(.

And the printed sources seem to be the biggest problem. Any ideas, except this one: Вулиці Києва, Довідник" УЕ, Київ-1995 ? (going to add it right now)

If there are any particular facts that appear to require a reference, place {{fact}} where a citation should go, like so ^{[citation needed]}. We can have a look at our books and see if we can find a reference. —Michael Z. 2006-01-8 06:57 Z

Got the online ref about demolition: http://spilka.onestop.net/library/kreschatik.html --Irpen 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khreschatyk=cross - is it official version? Or it is just "deduction" which from one hand seems quite obvious, but could be wrong. There is also a plant khreschatyy barvinok that loves groving in valleys.--Bryndza 15:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My source is the 1986 Kiev encyclopedia listed among the references. --Ghirla | talk 19:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A minor question: why trying to avoid the fact that Khreschatyk is the main and best known street of Kyiv? :)) Just curious... Ukrained 20:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because "Main" doesn't seem right to me, but OTOH, I am not a native speaker. The "main street", IMO could only apply to the much smaller places than Kiev, places that are built around one street. Khreschatyk is a center street, it is certainly a best known one (perhaps Andrew's Descent (Andriivsky Uzviz) rivals it with fame, another red link BTW). Main? Not so sure. Michael, you are the native speaker. I will leave that to you. --Irpen 06:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason we are using the transliteration Khreschatyk? In Google it has a very slight edge over Khreshchatyk, with shch for щ, but the latter is our usual way of transliterating Ukrainian. Yes, it's further complicated by the fact that the former version goes by the official Ukrainian system for geographic names, but so far we've only used that for political entities. —Michael Z. 2006-01-9 06:21 Z

Either way is fine with me. or we can wait, I don't care. Under whatever name it goes to DYK, is unimportant IMO. We can always rename the article, it's no biggy. --Irpen 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask the very same question... Halibutt 04:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to not know the best answer being the non-expert in transliteration. So if the straw poll is run, my vote is abstain unless we can find what authorative English L sources use. Then, I would support that version. --Irpen 04:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty fine for a 1-1/2 day old article! DYK should be a shoo-in. Keep up the good work, all. —Michael Z. 2006-01-9 06:47 Z

This article is now on the Main page in DYK. Thanks everyone who contributed. This was a good group effort. —Michael Z. 2006-01-10 06:21 Z

Yes, I keep doing small changes perhaps some of them useless. It may need another copyedit. I found some known to me blunders in some of the listed sources. So, the facts I used from them may also have an error or two that I didn't know of.

As long as we don't politicize this article too much (that is not going too deep into history) that may spark edit wars, this can be bielt up to WP:FA. The subject is well-studied and there are plenty of books and articles.

Thanks all, and especially the newcomers. What's next for DYK? Andrew's Descent? Whatever we choose, plan carefully because the DYK submission should be made within 72 hours after the article's appearance. Writing a stub that "A. D. is the historic street of Kiev" without being ready to expand it quickly, would disqualify the article from the DYK. Not that DYK is everything of course :). --Irpen 06:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that it is on Khreshchatyk street.--AndriyK 18:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it is "conservatory of music". The Philharmonic is on the European Square across the Ukrainian House (former Lenin museum).

Please do not make drammatic changes and rerevert the intro. Destruction of the entire street is a unique event and belongs there. What's located where is covered in the text. Intro isn't the article itself. Also, why are you rephrasing the events related to Polish invasion? This article is the result of consensus of several editors (most are Ukrainian BTW). Do not impose your view without discussion and, especially, do not revert with persistence. --Irpen 18:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Khreshchatik and Maidan were originally designed as a single architectural project I propose they be merged into a single article. Since it is impossible to mention one without the other. --Kuban kazak 13:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, each of them deserve an article on its own. Maidan article would include much politics besides architecture. Street article, hopefully not. Also, while the fact that Maidan is located on the street deserves to be mentioned in the article (not in the intro perhgaps), it's former name "October Revolutions square" as well as its names before that belong to the Maidan article itself and not to Khreschatyk. --Irpen 16:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes but then Khreschatyk also took part in the political overturn last year. Hmm...maybe a new article describing the post-war reconstruction of Kiev and the architectural designs would be better, since this would obviously be a star feature of that article...--Kuban kazak 19:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-war architecture of Kiev would be an encyclopedic topic, I agree. Khreschatyk while being at the center of the Orange Revolution is, nevertheless, not associated with it by the media as much as Maidan. --Irpen 19:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something for that from our Metro community: [2] --Kuban kazak 20:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we use pics from there at Wiki? The green "M" would be great in Kiev Metro. --Irpen 20:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the person is a common sight on our forum. So I will drop him a message there, and his livejournal is there as well. Here is something else that you might be interested in --Kuban kazak 20:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merger fiercely. Ukrained 22:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, there won't be. I already removed the merge template. --Irpen 22:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been protected until you work out your differences on the talk page. When you think you've come to an agreement, please request unprotection. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit conflict there was rather slow going and there were no wild revert wars. As such, there is no need to keep the article locked. That's just my opinion of course. --Irpen 16:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to avoid any revert war, even a slow one. I proposed to create Talk:Khreschatyk/Working version and try to find a consensus there.--AndriyK 19:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. In the meanwhile, the article should be unprotected so that we continue improving its non-political parts and the contentious pieces should be returned to the pre-conflict shape.

In general, I am sorry to see that you manage to disrupt and politicize (well, politicize first and then disrput) even such an apolitical topic as the street article. I was hopeful and all went well with several of us, Ukrainian editors, developing it. That was until you came with your trademark ignore-everyone-else editing style. Anyway, I hope you reconsider and we can work out the differences about the things you seem to have an issue at the "working version" page. --Irpen

Let's look what Bryndza wrote a few days ago. This is you who ignore other user's opinion. Let's switch to the working version. Hopefully you'll learn to accept compromises.--AndriyK 19:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. -Irpen 19:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent trolling

By the way, Irpen, please stop provoking edit wars over every single unimportant point. Your prosperous Pechersk is certainly irrelevant to the article on Khreschatyk. Even it was, I deleted the erroneous info. At the time in question, Pechersk was merely a slobidka around Kiev fortress and Lavra, not a modern elite district.

Of course you know that. I'm afraid you didn't mean to discuss something with me or other non-pro-Russian editors :). Just like in the case with occupying states listing. I guess you just wanted to troll me - in order to keep me and my objections to more important pages out of WP. But I'm back here and going to watch the edits of your group. Have you finished your version of History of christianity? Cause I'm going to examine it thoroughly.

I won't engage in edit war over the passage reverted by you - mostly to demonstrate my reasonability and peacefullness. But my point must be presented here. Ukrained 22:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]