Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:World Heritage Sites in the Ukraine
The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. -Kbdank71 19:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
AlexPU moved all the articles into Category:World Heritage Sites in Ukraine, which he created. Personally, I think The Ukraine is more natural English , but I can't say I'm bothered enough to argue the point. Given I just the category an hour ago and I'm now nominating for deletion, I don'think this one needs too much debate ;o) — OwenBlacker 20:15, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, thinking about this further, I disagree. I think Category:World Heritage Sites in Ukraine should be moved to Category:World Heritage Sites in the Ukraine, like Category:World Heritage Sites in the United States.One for consensus, I think. — OwenBlacker 20:28, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Category:World Heritage Sites in the Ukraine. Short version: the English usage "the Ukraine" is a remnant of the Russian Empire, implying that Ukraine is merely a geographic region inhabited by Little Russians, and not a self-determined nation. It's still pretty commonly used, although in published work it's usually a sign of sloppy copy-editing. "The United States" or "the Czech Republic" aren't analogous at all; it's more like "the France". There's some discussion in my archived talk. —Michael Z. 2005-02-19 22:46 Z
- Delete - "the Ukraine" rather than Ukraine is just an affectation. zoney ♣ talk 22:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I had honestly never heard "Ukraine" used without being "The Ukraine", but looking at Style Guides (Economist, Guardian, Times), I gather it's now considered archæic. My bad. Though I certainly wouldn't have considered it to be belittling Ukrainians.
- Do not use the definite article before Krajina, Lebanon, Piedmont, Punjab, Sudan, Transkei, Ukraine. (Economist Style Guide)
- I'd use The Lebanon and The Sudan, as well. Consider me corrected! — OwenBlacker 15:03, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I had honestly never heard "Ukraine" used without being "The Ukraine", but looking at Style Guides (Economist, Guardian, Times), I gather it's now considered archæic. My bad. Though I certainly wouldn't have considered it to be belittling Ukrainians.
- It's used all the time, and I'm sure it's practically never intended to belittle. But the "the" is glaringly self-evident to Ukrainian and Russian speakers, since neither language has a definite article at all. Whether true or not, it seems that whoever established that conventional translation would have done so purposefully.
- In the case of Sudan, "the Sudan" is the region and "Sudan" is the nation. Neutralitytalk 16:10, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)