Talk:Zaporozhian Sich

Name

The name of this place was Zaporizhian Sich, which is also the original title of this article. Here's some English language sources. Historians: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Travel guides [6]. Government/Library of Congress [7].

Please stop trying to Russify this name for no reason. Start an WP:RM if you must.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Axxxion, in case you didn't notice this section before, one more time, if you want the article moved please follow up proper procedure and start an WP:RM. Please also stop changing the name in text to the Russian translation of the name as that version is not prevalent in English language sources and it doesn't make sense to change the name until the article title issue is settled.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• I agree. While the Russian transliteration is almost as common in books as Zaporizhian Sich (see "google books"), Zaporizhian Sich is a significantly more common name in news and other publications. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I get 56 hits on gbooks for "Zaporozhskaya Sech", a lot of them very outdated (from the 1930's and 1940's) or some kind of direct translations of Russian works, like Gogol's Dead Souls, or related to a person named Vera Zaporozhskaya, [8]. I get more than three times as many hits for the current title, "Zaporizhian Sich", [9].Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually "Zaporozhian" seems to be slightly more common than "Zaporizhian".Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This is wrong argument by Axxion. It does not matter who established the "Sech". It does not matter if it was "ruski" or not. Only one thing matters: the proper word in modern English per WP:COMMON NAME. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the move, on the grounds that Wikipedia policy is that controversial moves should be made using the process at WP:RM. It is also Wikipedia policy that talk pages should have the same name as the article name; so either the article needed moving back to its original name, or the talk page needed moving to Axxxion's new name.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Zaporizhian Sich has much more hits in Google books then Zaporozhskaya Sech. So the much more common English name for the subject of this Wikipedia artickle is "Zaporizhian Sich" and Wikipedia articles should reflect common English usage. So stop moving this page Axxxion. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way Axxxion insulted me here (or Hispanics is general) as an "argument" why this page should be named "Zaporozhskaya Sech"... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

And why does Axxxion keeps removing the Polish translation of the name of Zaporizhian Sich in the lead. Zaporizhian Sich is also part of the history of Poland. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Reprise

The title Zapirizhian (with "i") looks silly because the text itself says "Zaporozhian" everywhere as well as all the other related articles with the same word use "o" in their titles. Just looks incorrect. BTW, the article in Ukrainian is entitled Запорозька Січ, again with "o". I think we should change the title back to "o" --Asimsky (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The WP:COMMONNAME in English (per Magocsi, the Ukrainian online Encyclopedia, et al) is "Zaporozhian Sich", "Zaporozhian cossacks", and so forth. I suspect that the reason for the confusion is that the actual geographic region it was located in was Zaporizhia. The cossacks, themselves, were referred to (and referred to themselves) as "Запорожці" ("Zaporozhtsi"). The difference is that Zaporozhian is adjectival, with the subject being "sich"; i.e., Zaporizhian Sich is an ungrammatical transliteration... So, yes, the article needs to be renamed and brought in line with the other articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I was just looking into this when you posted. The main source used, the Encyclopedia of Ukriane, uses the spellings you discuss here, so thanks for the explanation. I agree that the article should be moved, and usage within the article should be checked. (I did extensive work on the article and didn't even notice this, so obviously it needs to be checked by someone other than me!) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll just wait to see whether there is consensus to rename the article (rather than go through an RM), and am happy to make the relevant changes. Mind you, I'd be grateful if someone else double-check. I'm wary of not noticing things, just as are you. I guess I just 'read' these articles about the cossacks without paying attention to the nomenclature because I know it in more than one language, and automatically know what is being referred to. After all, it's never actually come to my attention until Asimsky kindly pointed out the inconsistencies! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 June 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. All associated articles should now be at consistent titles, so it should be possible to discuss all of these as a group if subsequent move discussions are necessary. Dekimasuよ! 17:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Zaporizhian Sich → Zaporozhian Sich – In accordance with article text. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support per this discussion above, explaining the relationship between Zaporizhia and Zaporozhian. And the main source on the page uses Zaporozhian, as do others. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• strongly oppose. per WP:COMMONNAME . city name is Zaporizhzhia and Zaporizhian is correct spelling. based on https://geonames.usgs.gov/ and also The name of this place was Zaporizhian Sich— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.200.143.183 (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support per the rationale I've already supplied at the concurrent RM being held with the objective of changing the title of the "Zaporozhian Cossacks" article to "Zaporizhian Cossacks". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The "Zaporozhian cossacks" have been written about in English for a very long time, and the "i" spelling is based on a mistaken analogy with the city. A search on Google books supports the case that the "o" spelling is dominant.
  • Google books "Zaporozhian sich" about 2,760 results.
  • Google books "Zaporizhian sich" about 212 results.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support per the prevalence in the English-language sources. - Darwinek (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The entity which is transliterated from Ukrainian into English as "Zaporizhian Sich" was located upon territory which was part of Ukraine, as it existed then, and continues to be part of present-day Ukraine. It is, at the very least, as much a component of Ukrainian history as it is of Polish history and Russian history, with the latter two using the name which is translated/transliterated into English as "Zaporozhian". Varying sources continue to reflect the Russian form, as explained at English exonyms#Ukraine, "Many Ukrainian place names in English historically match the Russian spelling/pronunciation". Ukraine, however, has been an independent nation since 1991 and such historical grandfathering is no longer applicable. The modern term for the long-ago entity is the Ukrainian one, "Zaporizhian Sich".    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Relisting comment: See Talk:Zaporizhia#Discussion. Andrewa (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Voting (sic) just to keep the title consistent with Zaporozhian Cossacks which recently also had an RM discussion. —  AjaxSmack  19:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

---

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Paragraph makes unreferenced assertions on relocation to America and Australia

The paragraph "Destruction and aftermath" makes claims about prior attempts to relocate to America or Australia. There is no context in the single reference for this paragraph which supports this. Also while this is discussed as aftermath (and may refer to later, undated, events) the dissolution of the Sich was in 1775, only 5 years after Cook's exploration on eastern Australia, and 13 years before non-Aboriginal colonization. A reference is required to establish the basis and timeline for this claim. 124.168.209.227 (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Kafa. 1616..jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)