Talk:Donbas/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Donbass region overwhelmingly supported Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine's 2004 presidential elections

This text was moved from the article as irrelevant and confusing:

The Donbass region overwhelmingly supported Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine's 2004 presidential elections. Yanukovych, who is a native of Donetsk and once served as the region's governor, was accused of being complicit in large scale electoral fraud during the presidential election. In the subsequent "Orange Revolution", the Donbass remained an unwavering bastion of support for Yanukovych.

The info is correct, but entirely unexplained, stylistically inaccurate and unreferenced. In case if anybody wants it back, I'm ready to discuss and cooperate. However, please no silent revertwarring by anons - the thing ocassionally happening around Donbas articles but always confronted by me and other users. Wishes, Ukrained 19:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian name

Corrected the Ukrainian name. It is Донецький басейн or Донбас, not Донецький кряж. "Донецький кряж" (Donetsky kryazh) is the name of a hill range in the region, not the name of the whole region.--70.52.10.235 21:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Geology

Please add geology information from the Russian article. Solarapex 23:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Grigory Nemiria = Hrihoriy Nemyrya?

In this article is quoted Grigory Nemiria. Is this Hrihoriy Nemyrya but is his name written in this artcle 'the Russian way? If so it should also tell that Nemyrya is a inluencial politician and member of BYuT, BYuT has her voters in nationalistic Western-Ukraine. So he might have a motive for saying what he did other then to inform people... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Pollution

The most important regional articles on the Oblast and the city of Donets have no mention of pollution and the enonormous projected costs of cleanup and the impact of tax evasion and related transparency, accountability and governance issues.

Care should be taken that vandalism does not prevent WP from losing trace of the issue in this article given the state of the two major articles which link back to the former governors and administrators in the region. Removal of mention of Yanukovich popularity further degrades any realization by readers of the role of concern about real estate values in Ukraine and the continued practice of misinformation in the region.

G. Robert Shiplett 15:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is a mayor expansion of the article whit sub-chapters Politics and Pollution. I agree with that but lack the willpower to start this expansion now.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

But do please take in mind that Yanukovich popularity may not be is high as you think... (see: here & here). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2014

The following discussion is an archived 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: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


Donets Basin → Donbass – It is clear that the English-language common name for this region is "Donbass", using the Russian spelling. I've taken a look in multiple places to see what is favoured, either the Russian spelling, Ukrainian spelling, or the English translation "Donets Basin". Google Ngrams show that "Donbas", the Ukrainian spelling, used to predominate. However, in the past ten years or so, the Russian spelling, "Donbass", has overtaken the Ukrainian spelling as the most common in English. "Donets Basin" has been depreciated in recent years, and has fallen behind both "Donbass" and "Donbas". Recent events in the Donbass region have made the area more well known, and have also caused the area to be frequently referred to as "Donbass", noting that the area is predominately Russian-speaking. Google News searches confirm this, showing that "Donbas" has only 5,710 hits, whereas "Donbass" has 24,600. Donets Basin only has seven hits, showing how far that translation has fallen. Therefore, I think that we should move this article in line with the common name, as demonstrated by recent usage, which is "Donbass", which is also more WP:CONCISE. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC) RGloucester — ☎ 16:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Prefer Donbas as more common both in the past and the present, according to books n-grams. Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
That only goes up to 2008, and ignores the recent coverage that is shown in the Google News search I provided. Donbass has clearly been favoured in the context of the unrest in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 03:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm against WP:RECENTISM. Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
So am I. However, this is a long-term shift in usage. "Donets Basin" has fallen significantly over a very long period of time. RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd prefer not to enter nationalistic battles between the Russia-backed rebels and the government of Ukraine that would come up with any rename one way or another. Until Russia annexes this region, or Ukraine regains control, I say we leave this article name alone. Renaming either way would likely result in users from those backgrounds or political leanings entering the fray and entering battle, as can be seen in other articles from volatile and disputed regions. — 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing disputed. The title "Donets Basin" has almost completely fallen out of usage. Using the Russian or Ukrainian transliteration has nothing to do with national tendencies. There are many Russian-speakers in the region, and some Ukrainian-speakers as well. We go by what is most common in English, not either of those languages. The Google News search makes clear what is most common at the present moment, and that is "Donbass". The current title is untenable. RGloucester — ☎ 05:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not really untenable. In fact it might be better than choosing one or the other based on shifting usages. Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
It is never better to choose something that almost no one uses, and that's why we have WP:UCN. There is substantially no difference between "Donbass" and "Donbas", and I really don't care which one is used. This is nothing like the Liancourt Rocks, which is what I think you are referencing. The name of the region is not disputed. Both sides in the conflict refer to it by the same thing. The only difference is the transliteration. RGloucester — ☎ 16:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – "Donbas" and "Donbass" are both mere abbreviations of "Donets Basin", which is clearly more informative and more readily identifiable by English speakers. Recent usage is highly influenced by recent events, but check "Donets Basin" in GoogleBooks and you'll see at least 44,000 occurrences. Note too that the full name "Donets Basin" is still used by Britannica and Columbia encyclopedias. Incoming links from the Donbass and Donbas redirects are more or less the same as Donets Basin itself, so if we change this longstanding article title, it will be tantamount to promoting a preferred usage. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

According to Ngrams, "Donets Basin" has not been favoured since at least 1970. "Donbass" and "Donbas" have surpassed it at different times since then. I don't see why we'd choose the name which is least common. RGloucester — ☎ 21:23, 12 July 2014 (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.

Donbass as new article?

@Nickst: I'd support a separate article on the cultural/political region. This article is about the geography, more or less. We do need an article on the cultural/political aspects, given recent events. RGloucester — ☎ 17:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 22 February 2015

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. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Per a request, I'm expanding my closing rationale, per a discussion at a discussion at User talk:EdJohnston.

WP:COMMONNAME trumps the view that, by picking Donbass as the name, we are choosing between Russian and Ukrainian views of the situation. An editor claimed to see political significance in this closure. In my view, politics plays no role. We just need to determine what name is most commonly used in English, and be sure there is no uncertainty in what 'Donbass' refers to. It is ironic that the former article was titled 'Donetsk basin' but then used the word Donbass consistently in the article text when referring to the subject. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Donets Basin → Donbass – This article should be moved for a few reasons. For one, "Donbass" is the common name for this place in English, as shown by Google Ngrams. Google shows 8,680,000 hits for "Donbass", 1,220,000 for "Donbas", and only 103,000 for "Donets Basin". Secondly, "Donbass" is much more WP:CONCISE than the present title, and also more naturally what the reader would type into the search bar, per WP:NATURALNESS. It is also true that use of "Donets Basin" tends to be limited in use to the coal-ming area geological area, whereas "Donbass" is a cultural and historical region that has a wider scope. Note that the Russian Wikipedia has two articles on the subject, one for "Donbass" as a cultural region, and one for "Donets Coal Basin" as a narrow-scoped geological area. This article is about the wider-scoped entity. All of our title criteria suggest using "Donbass". RGloucester — ☎ 20:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Google hits alone do not dictate article titles. "Donets Basin" is the well-known English name for the region, while "Donbas" and "Donbass" are both mere abbreviations, one in Ukrainian and the other in Russian. At eleven characters and four syllables, "Donets Basin" is not a case for WP:CONCISE, and being the only name not in a foreign language, it's not a case for WP:NATURALNESS. It is, however, the clear winner of WP:PRECISION – that's surely part of the reason it's still used by Britannica and Columbia encyclopedias, as well as common English-language textbooks. Given the region's current turmoil, there is now a large spike in internet usage of the Ukrainian and Russian names – as well as an odd but notable spike in "Donbass" redirects on WP, since the last move request – but that is not reason enough to change the name here. Wikipedia cannot be the first encyclopedic source to make a call like this: if we change this longstanding article title, it will be tantamount to promoting a preferred usage. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I did not say that "Google hits alone dictate article titles". Nonetheless, WP:UCN is policy. We are not like other encyclopedias, in that respect. We do not use official names or formalisms. We use the names that are commonly used. Wikipedia precisely CAN be the first tertiary source to use this title. There is no reason why it cannot. "Donbass" is clearly not in a "foreign language", anymore than "Paris" is in a foreign language. It is accepted in the English language as a topographical name, as demonstrated by the myriad books and newspapers that use it. It is the common and concise name. There is nothing less precise about "Donbass". In fact, I'd argue that "Donets Basin" is overly precise, precisely because it is generally used to refer specifically to the geological basin, rather than to the cultural region. This is demonstrated by the fact that books about the historical region use "Donbass". This article is about the cultural region. RGloucester — ☎ 01:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Question. What are exactly the new arguments for restarting this move request? Beagel (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The last one was seven months ago. "Donbass" is now even more common than it was then. I believe that the case was clear then, but it is even more clear now. The present title is incorrect and not widely used, and there is no reason not to use the more concise, common, and natural title. RGloucester — ☎ 17:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per #Requested move 2014 ; we should not choose between Russian and Ukrainian in a region in armed dispute between a Russian invasion and Ukranian defence. The proposed title would favour Russian claims to the region over Ukrainian ones, making it seem like Wikipedia supports Russian sovereignty over the region. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. We are choosing between neither Russian or Ukrainian. We are choosing the English common name, as demanded by our policies, just as with Kiev (Russian-derived, rather than Ukrainian-derived "Kyiv") or Odessa (Russian-derived, rather than Ukrainian-derived "Odesa"). What's more, tons of Ukrainians speak Russian. Using words derived from Russian, a language that is as common in Kiev as it is in Donbass, has nothing to do with "Russian sovereignty". The Russian language is not the property of the Russian state. RGloucester — ☎ 06:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • agree with nominator. donbass always using in sources, never donets basin. nominator user provide good sources. frequent name is donbass. in japanese we call itドンバス donbasu. we got that fron english. use name that is common. Togashi Yuuta (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nom but I feel that opponents squeamishness about "choosing (linguistic) sides" is well-intentioned. If this move succeeds, there will likely be a round of Donbas/Donbass RM discussions to follow. —  AjaxSmack  07:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • support: region is called donbass. never heard of this donets basin before i come to this from donbass civil war article. source is provided in german news: http://www.dw.de/opinion-echoes-of-donbass-in-moscows-streets/a-18286515 This name is shit
  • Support as proposed. Common English usage is clear here. It's not a question of "taking sides", just pure unadulterated WP:COMMONNAME.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2015 (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.

The rural E

In the "Demographics and politics" section: "The extent to which the rural e was forced Ukrainian population in the aftermath of the Soviet Union to emigrate and / or put her death by an allegedly systematic, organized by the regime of Stalin famine (Holodomor) into account" — er, what? -sche (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Referendum

The Donbass status referendums, 2014 was not about Donbass as a geographical region of eastern Ukraine (subject of this page). It was about self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics that are geographically very different (smaller) than Donbass. We have this info and link in section about war at Donbass. Nothing else should be mentioned about it on this page. It belongs to other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The referendums were held on the status of the whole oblasts, even if the DPR and LPR did not control them. I don't disagree that the content could be trimmed somewhat, but I would find it strange if it were not mentioned on some level at this page. RGloucester — ☎ 16:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
First of all, the referendum was already mentioned in the section about war in Donbass. If I understand correctly, the "referendum" was not conducted on the Ukrainian-controlled territories, i.e. on the large parts of Donetsk oblast and Luhansk oblast. Is that correct? Of course the separatists could claim that a referendum was conducted for the entire Donbass, but it was not true - simply as a matter of fact. What they did was in fact a "referendum" only on the territory they controlled. That was not Donbass, but a territory of DPR and LPR republics, which is significantly smaller. Simply calling an event a "Donbass status referendums" might be fine if sources call it this way (I am not entirely sure), but it was not actually a referendum for the whole Donbass as a geographic entity, which is this page about. My very best wishes (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Whilst the DPR and the LPR did not control all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, the referendum was purported by those who ran it to consider the status of the whole of that territory, regardless of actual control on the ground. They did not claim that the referendum was conducted across the entire Donbass, but claimed that the result would apply to their whole claimed territory, i.e. Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Regardless of that, it is clearly relevant in this article, even if we accept that it only affected a (large) part of the region. RGloucester — ☎ 19:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not telling it is irrelevant to the page. It is relevant, and it remained on the page after my removal. I am only telling that writing that much about it was clearly undue, given that it was not a referendum for Donbass, no matter was separatists claimed. BTW, keep in mind that so called "counter-referendum" on the Ukrainian part of Donbass [1] was a different referendum, with different questions. And it also was not about status of the entire Donbass. My very best wishes (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the section should be trimmed, as I said above. I think I understand what you're saying now, and have hence re-removed the section. I don't know why the "referendum" results were included as representing "public opinion in Donbass". Obviously that's not a correlation that lines up. Is that what you meant? RGloucester — ☎ 19:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I thought that was something obvious. Sorry, I do not have a lot of time to contribute in discussions. My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Wrong spelling

Officialy Donbas is the part of Ukraine. In ukrainian you should spell "Donbas" with single "s". So following to principles of translation of geographical names the correct version is "Donbas" with single "s".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Commanddotcom (talk • contribs) 17:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  • This is English encyclopedia, written in English language. WP:COMMONNAME policy favors the current title, just like Kiev, not Kyiv. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Yea, but Donbass is not an English word. It is a Russian adaptation. The encyclopedia maybe English, but it is going to turn Russophone with these claims. Donbas is a portmanteau of Donets basin, not Donets bassin. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Aleksandr Grigoryev: It is English usage that matters. Whether an English-language word corresponds to a transliteration of a word in Russian is not relevant.
Please show evidence that Donbas is more prevalent in the English-language than Donbass.
If you are worried about Wikipedia turning Russophone, why not apply your energies to Germany (a transliteration of ru:Германия); should the article be renamed Nimechchyna, a term that has absolutely no meaning in the English-language?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Toddy1, Donbas is a portmanteau and has nothing to do with transliteration. Are you really denying that fact??? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
That’s not quite right (it’s wrong). The Ukrainian Донбас is a portmanteau from Донецький басейн, and Russian Донбасс from Донецкий бассейн. English Donbas and Donbass are borrowings from those respective language, and their spellings are determined by transliteration. Strictly speaking, these are expressions of the same name, not different words, and it doesn’t fit into binary cubby-holes “English” and “not English.” —Michael Z. 21:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Toddy1, you have a good sense of humor, however country like Myanmar in English is better known as Burma, yet Wikipedia does follow officially adopted name without "Google search" counts. Same goes for Bejing which before was known as Peking and many other geographic toponyms across the world (i.e. Mumbai formerly Bombay). Naming Donbas as Donbass just because of "Google search" counts has the same sense like your offer to me applying energies and has no other explanation as being related to Russian. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Strangely enough, someone else is using the same logic as you at Talk:Luhansk People's Republic#Hello editors. Maybe you should join that discussion, and he/she should join this one?-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference to kulaks a bit clumsily worded

The Ukrainian peasant farmers were not all kulaks, as the wording implies. That was what Stalin called them. I think the distinction needs to be made because it sounds like all peasant farmers were kulaks. Flanker235 (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You are right. It is a relative term and depends on point of view. In Ukrainian the name for affluent peasants is not kulak. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 July 2016

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: no consensus to move. -- Tavix (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I read the WP:COMMONNAME, I read all the arguments in the previous requested move section. All I can say that I'm really confused. There are two things that defines a name of an article here in Wiki. First thing is a reliable source or sources. Second thing is the local rules (in this case, it's a COMMONNAME rule). I can follow the @RGloucester:'s logic and I can support the fact that Donets Basin is a hard name and not common in English. So, following this logic further, the name of this article should be Donbas, because:

  • at least it's as common as Donbass or even more common (see below)
  • Oxford Dictionary gives us only Donbas. There's is no Donbass in the dictionary at all. So, the commonness of Donbass is in doubts.
  • If we choose Collins Dictionary, we'll see that the first place is occupied by Donbas.

There were a lot of contras against renaming of the article. As we can see the Donbass is not so common as some editors try to show. The reliable sources show that the preferred name is Donbas (actually Donets Basin is the most common name in all dictionaries). I want this article to be renamed from the present name to Donbas.--TnoXX (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Moreover name Donbass is NPV violation. There is no native word Donbass or Donbas in English, it's just transliteration of Russian or Ukrainian abbreviation Donets Basin accordingly. Now we have war between Russian and Ukrainian forces here, so moving neutral Donets Basin to Russian abbreviation Donbass just legitimizing Russian occupation of this territory through Wikipedia!
  • Also I'm disagree with argument that Donbass well-known for Google comparing with Donbas and should be used because of this. By many reasons (including political and linguistic) part of Ukrainian speakers and part of Ukrainian mass media call this territory just Донеччина (Donechchyna), native Ukrainian word for territories (compare: Київщина, Чернігівщина, Львівщина, Хмельниччина, Вінниччина, Одещина; phonetically щ = шч here) and part of Ukrainian speakers call it Donbass. By many reasons (almost the same) Russian speakers call it Donbass only. Moreover, Russians and Russian-backed mass media like Russia Today, Trolls from Olgino, Web brigades and so on successively using word Donbass in his English news and comments. So, I'm not surprised that this word well-known for Google nowadays. But Wikipedia — is a free Encyclopedia, and it's goal is mirroring reality, it's not goal of Wikipedia to be tool of Internet manipulation and propaganda and changing it!
@Artem.komisarenko: There is no political motivation in picking the spelling of a proper name; besides, Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to Right Great Wrongs. — JFG talk 01:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • So, I propose continue using neutral from all points of few Donets basin or changing article name to well known Donbas according to Oxford, Collins, Britannica where Donbas also on first place. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Agree with the arguments above. In addition, Google Ngrams show that Donbas is more popular than any of Donbass and Donets Basin in post-2000 sources. This point was not taken into account in the previous RM discussion as Ngram was cropped at 1998, 1998 being the last year when Donbass had advantage over Donbas — NickK (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with either 'Donbass' or 'Donbas', provided that we eliminate 'Donets Basin'. The name is barely used at all in current sources, and there is no reason to choose the least common name here. Google News shows 276 hits for 'Donets Basin', compared with 505,000 for 'Donbass' and 87,400 for 'Donbas'. The above Ngrams report is limited to 2008, which excludes all of the recent Anglophone coverage of the region that started in 2014, so I'm somewhat weary about using that as the basis for a move. Generally speaking, I'm opposed to a change per WP:TITLECHANGES, as there is no benefit to a change. Both names are equally comprehensible, differing only by one letter. The pronunciation in English is not changed. I don't think we should participate in language wars, which have no relevance here. However, if 'Donbas' is found to be more common overall, I would support a move per WP:P-NUK. RGloucester — ☎ 21:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    Unfortunately Google News results are strongly skewed.
    Thus I don't think that Google News can measure anything at all: one gets a mix of English and non-English sources which is heavily dominated by sources from Russia and Ukraine. Thus I would suggest using other sources that are not impacted by this skew, like Oxford Dictionaries — NickK (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
A dictionary cannot be used as a source for common usage. It merely categorises all words, with no reference to their commonality. You need to document usage of the word in reliable sources, like newspapers or books, not present a reference work that merely displays the meaning of such a word. By the way, it is inevitable that sources in English from Ukraine and Russia will dominate the results, as 'Donbas/Donbass' as a subject matter is more relevant to them. If take a look at Google Books, one sees that "Donbass" delivers 51,400 results, whereas "Donbas" delivers 45,700. RGloucester — ☎ 17:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Google Ngram seems to be the only good indicator in this case. General Google Books search cannot be used either, as it contains many non-English results. Once again, I checked top-100 results:
  • For "Donbass": 73 results in English, 27 not (10 German, 9 Russian, 4 French, 2 Italian, 1 Polish, 1 Latvian)
  • For "Donbas": 79 results in English, 21 not (8 Polish, 6 Ukrainian, 2 Romanian, 2 German, 1 Czech, 1 Danish, 1 Norwegian)
Given these numbers, I am not sure that pure number of Google Books results measures English usage. We can only state that Russian and German prefer Donbass, while Ukrainian and Polish prefer Donbas, but figures for English usage are not meaningful — 18:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, if we accept your analysis, then I oppose moving the article on the grounds of WP:TITLECHANGES, as usage is almost equally mixed. There is no benefit to a change, as both titles are equally acceptable in RS and to the reader, with no potential for confusion. RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
This was not an analysis, just a proof why simply counting WP:GOOGLE hits does not illustrate common usage, as coverage of post-2014 events is quite extensive not only in English, but also in German, Polish, French and Italian. However, I found a way to avoid this by adding prepositions (all links refer to Google News):
Now, this is truly English usage, and not that in a mixture of languages. This shows that news coverage in English also uses Donbas more frequently than Donbass, and in some cases by a significant margin. I think that together with Ngrams, encyclopaedias and dictionaries cited above this is good illustration that Donbas is common name in English — NickK (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The Google ngram for books until 2008 does not give a clear advantage to the Donbas or Donbass spelling; both have been more popular at various times in history, and this gives no data following the 2014 events which brought this region to worldwide attention. So we must turn to recent news reports to determine the currently most common English spelling. I agree that we should exclude both Ukrainian and Russian sources from this research to avoid local bias. So I have looked at spelling statistics from four major English-language newspapers (2 British and 2 American):
  1. BBC News: 6 for Donbas, 45 for Donbass (88%)
  2. The Guardian: 43 for Donbas, 213 for Donbass (83%)
  3. USA Today: 17 for Donbas, 220 for Donbass (93%)
  4. The Washington Post: 85 for Donbas, 211 for Donbass (71%)
Therefore we should keep the Donbass spelling. — JFG talk 02:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
More stats from Google Trends confirm that Donbass is the currently dominant spelling, by far. — JFG talk 02:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Top news from Guardian with Donbass show me following text: «Heroes and fighters for freedom of Donbass!» but I do not see this text on the page. It looks like just usual troll commentary indexed by Google and scrolled out of the page now. Author using only Donetsk regions in text. So, this statistics is not too accuracy and influenced by trolls that of course using Russian name for occupied Ukrainian territories. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2016 (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.

note

23:09, 13 IX 2015 (Aleksandr Grigoryev): The contemporary media definition of Donbas in Ukraine overlapping territories of Sloboda Ukraine. — Yuriy Dzyаdyk (t•c), 17:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Donbass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donbass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Donetsian Coal Basin which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donbas/Archive_1&oldid=1136669656"