This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Socialism Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Soviet Union Start‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Ukraine Start‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Noam Cohen (31 May 2022). "Wikipedia acts as a check on Putin's false view of history". The Washington Post. Since the Russian invasion, the English Wikipedia articles about the historical figures and topics Putin invoked have been racking up pop-star numbers. ... The one about the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, an obscure entity within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that Putin sees as having enabled Ukraine's current separate political identity, has had more than a half-million views since the invasion.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Demographics of Ukraine#Historical data|fell sharply after the Soviet Union's dissolution in 1991]] The anchor (#Historical data) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

The small flag (referring to the Ukrainian People's Republic) has the colors in the wrong order. Please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.11.104 (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"After World War II it was internationally recognised as an independent state in its own right (with a seat in the United Nations)." It was? There any documentation of this? Thanx 68.39.174.150 03:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

here is an article off of the united nations page that should clear up your doubt

http://www.un.int/ukraine/Ukr-UN/Ukraine-UN/Ukraine%20in%20the%20UN.htm

I simplified the following lengthy

This had only a symbolical meaning at that time's reality where Ukraine (as a Soviet republic) had no voice of its own in international affairs. In reality it meant little more than giving the Soviet Union extra seats (and votes) in the UN, which in itself was rather symbolical and had little effect in international affairs. The important seat of the UN Security Council permanent member was occupied by the USSR.

to

In reality it simply meant giving the Soviet Union extra seats (and votes) in the UN, since Ukraine (as a Soviet republic) had no voice of its own in international affairs.

Which says basically the same, but without POVish weasels: "symbolical meaning" (twice!), "little more", etc. Also, the permanent seat sentence is irrelevant here: there is nothing special that Ukraine, like nearly all otther countries, didn't have perm. Also, "at that time's reality" is a useless (and I would say misleading) phrase, since Ukrainian SSR never had any independent say. mikka (t) 02:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The original phrase might have been sloppily written but the new one misses a significant point that the vote Stalin gave to Ukraine (in UN General Assembly) meant little since there were 100+ members and the General assembly resolutions are meaningless anyway since there is no enforcement mechanism. OTOH, the resolutions of Security Counsil, where the seat belonged to the USSR itself, did matter, hence the vote there too. That what I wanted to say originally. --Irpen 03:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am afraid you are a bit wrong: Ukraine sat several times at the Security council, where her vote did matter to an extent. USSR had a permanent seat, which had the power of veto, which was used when USSR (or USA, btw) could not outvote by majority. To say or to hint in any way that General Assembly resolutions are meaningless is a disrespect to the body and misunerstanding of its purpose. Nevertheless the point is not missed, since it is covered in the overall general-purpose claim: Ukraine had no international say of its own.

On the other hand, if it is true that UkrSSR had no other, even nominally independent, international authority, this should be mentioned. For example, UkrSSR was not a member of Comecon, Warsaw Pact, etc. Do you know anything in this respect? mikka (t) 03:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will see what I can find out. Also, the Ukr SSR had its own Ministry of Foreign Affairs, perhaps just to support the UN mission. I don't know. Many states had consulates in Kiev, but so did they in Leningrad, so it doesn't mean much international recognition. It is interesting to find out to what international organization Ukraine belonged as a separate member. I will see whether I can find anything out.

On the side note, I am sorry if it hurts the General Assembly, but its resolutions were indeed meeningless. Every year or so it passed (and maybe still the passes) resolutions condemning Israel for something and it has no effect and they are not ever remembered. OTOH, the single UN Security Council Resolution 242 despite being so old is being brought up all the time despite this particular resolution had no enforcement mechanism. --Irpen 03:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I look at this from other side. It would be truly horrible to have a single world power with abilities to crush anyone. UN is good to arrange cooperation where cooperation is possible. Where it is not possible, it shows who sits on which side of the fence. What it does is pretty useful. mikka (t) 03:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please explain at talk what in particular is doubted by "underefenced" tag? Entire article? Something particular? Thanks! --Irpen 23:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this article diserves to be of "Top" importance to the Wikiproject Ukraine, it is literally Ukraine. Why would it not be ranked at the top of the importance scale? Any ideas? Bogdan 00:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I don't know, maybe it should be, because it existed for quite a long time (±80 years). —dima/talk/ 01:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added the reqmap tag because the current map isn't very helpful. It looks like it was scanned from an atlas; can anyone replace it with a better one, perhaps one with clearly readable text? Bry9000 (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the reqmap tag from this page, and instead directly tagged the map image file to request cleanup. Bry9000 (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The WP Graphics Lab has helped to clean up the map considerably. It's still not perfect, but it's better, so I'll leave it alone. Bry9000 (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that given that the formal name for this nation was "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic", the soviet prefix abbreviation (-"SSR") shouldn't be in the full article name. Therefore, I propose to move the article to its full form, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. We wouldn't have an article about North Korea titled "DPRK", would we? --Micahbrwn (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please discuss this multimove here --Lox (t,c) 11:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (ССР - Украины) was stablished in 25.july.1938 in the 1st session of Supreme Soviet of Ukrainian SSR (Верховного Совета Украинской ССР). Before it, the name was Ukrainian Popular Republic (Украинской Народной Республики) (11 december 1917). The same as Tsentralnaya Rada or Directorate are know now!!!! (known as Tsentralnaya Rada or Directorate... or worse words). --Shliahov (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What? The Soviet Union was established, from which countries? The real problem is the introduction table. the UkrSSR was established on the territory of the UPR and therefore there should be only one political entity identify that was preceding its formation. I do not see how Romania pretains to the formation of the UkrSSR. The fact that Soviet Union occupied the Romanian and Polish territories does not automatically refer to the formation of such pseudo-country.Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uk SSR does not belong to Category:Holodomor for the same reason as USA does not belong to Category:September 11 attacks. (Igny (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Ukrainian National Republic map 1917 1920.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The phrase has been unsourced since September 2014. Enough is enough, if collectivisation is good, why British or US farmes don't collectivise on a voluntary basis? Xx236 (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, yes, agreed. Per WP:NOR, either the description is attributable, or it's WP:EUPHEMISM. I think a neutral, attributable (i.e., WP:RS) descriptor needs to be found, or any of us can write our own description. Per NPOV, I could just as easily replace it with "... failure of farming communities to give their only source of revenue to the government and go to work for the government with no idea of whether they would even provide enough food to survive on in exchange for people's worldly possessions and labour (as well as the communal village life traditional to the vast majority of Ukrainians, with the rural population accounting for well over 80% of the population at that time)."

Honestly, the turn of phrase is painfully contrived and smacks of Soviet rhetoric rather than maintaining a neutral tone. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone clarify to me what part of the Ukrainian SSR is today a part of Poland? Or Moldova?--BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 18:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1951 Polish–Soviet territorial exchange is about it. And small part of former Бендерский уезд of Moldova was in 1940 part of USSR. And till 1940 Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic territory was the part of Ukrainian SSR Cathry (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks.--BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 23:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From what I understand, although Ukraine had declared independence in 1991, it still used the existing 1978 Ukrainian SSR constitution based on the fact that 12 of the 15 post-Soviet states used their respective Soviet constitutions from 1978. Can anyone ratify this issue? Wrestlingring (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ukraine declared itself independent and changed its name to the Republic of Ukraine in 1991, and there are absolutely no arguments to back up that this state existed until 1996. That would be rewriting history. A new state is not just a matter of all-new constitutions, but also of its status and form of government. Afghanistan has had a lot of states since the abolishment of monarchy in the 1970s: the First Republic (1973–1978), Democratic Republic/Second Republic (1978–1992), the Islamic State (1992–2001), the Islamic Emirate (1996–2001), the Afghan Interim Administration (2001–2002), the Afghan Transitional Administration (2002–2004), and the present-day Islamic Republic since 2004. Yet they have only had four constitutions since then: 1976, 1987, 1990 and 2004. Is that to say that we should change these yearspans totally as well, so that most of these states didn't exist? The People's Republic of Hungary ended in 1989, but an all-new constitution was first made in 2011. Should we also say that the PR of Hungary existed until 2011, then? That would make little sense. Although Ukraine did not adopt a new constitution before 1996, there's no doubt about that it was a totally different state. It had a totally different form of government, its name was changed, it was an independent state (not a federated state), it was not a Soviet socialist republic. These factors are a lot more independent than the adoption of an all-new constitution. And although the constitution was not all-new, and formally the same constitution although heavily amended, it was amended to fit a new state and was not really the same constitution in practice. You'll have to agree that the 1991 transition is a lot more historically significant change in Ukraine's history than the adoption of a new constitution. Te og kaker (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Te og kaker, correction. In 1991 Ukraine did not declare itself as the Republic of Ukraine. It declared itself as Ukraine through the Declaration of Independence soon after the pro-Communist coup-d'état in Moscow. Wrestlingring, Ukrainian SSR was an official name for official documentation and was not used on daily basis. The country was known simply as Ukraine even before 1991. Note that during the World War II, some Soviet military fronts were known as Ukrainian fronts, not Ukrainian SSR fronts nor Soviet Ukraine fronts. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

During dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991-1992 Ukraine adopted several laws where it proscribed legal transitioning of the country, while in 1996 it adopted the official document based on those laws. To understand that one should learn a constitutional development in Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130912153906/http://www.ined.fr/fichier/t_publication/cdrom_mortukraine/cdrom.htm to http://www.ined.fr/fichier/t_publication/cdrom_mortukraine/cdrom.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 14:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey guys, I think I had finished translating the Ukrainian SSR article from the Ukrainian language to English. Can I do major changes to it?

• This article is already well developed with plenty of reliable English language sources. All future changes need to be supported by scholarly peer reviewed material, not the wikis. The article needs work, but WP:TRANSLATETOHERE serves a different purpose. Poeticbent talk 17:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, that means I cannot do it?--Respublika Narodnaya (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For consistencies sake, should the Ukraine / the Ukrainian National Republic forces be referred to as 'nationalists' or as 'republicans'? It's tricky to me since in fighting with the Whites they were republicans and against the monarchy, but in contxt against the Bolsheviks they were for a nation state vs. communist state, right? --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 14:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Within the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the name carried unofficial status for eastern parts of bigger Kyiv Voivodeship and was overshadowed by the more common Little Poland. Since the partition of Poland, the name had generally disappeared and was replaced with the Russian imposed name "Little Russia"."

The section envisages rather controversial point of view, while it does not contain a single link to any source to prove such standpoint. More specifcially, the name "Ukraine" was widely used in the area and was more common than "Little Poland". Actually, the name "Ukraine" with regard to the territory was commonly used by Polish poets from that area in their poems in XVIIIth century, while "Malopolska" (Little Poland) was used in respect of territories of the Krakow and Ruthenian voivedoships. Another point is that the name "Little Russia" is known from the Medieval times and was mentioned many times in Byzantine/Greek chronicles with regard to this territory. Saying that it was imposed after partitions in order to replace "more common" name "Little Poland" is highly controversial, if not to say that it is simply a manipulation.

If "the Ukrainian position is that the usage of "'The Ukraine' is incorrect both grammatically and politically" (quote from the wiki text) why does this sentence then use the article?

This refers to the modern independent state. Mellk (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what is up with the units on this graph >>>>

The way it's structured now it says there where 87 million tractors and 2 billion horses in ukraine in 1938—blindlynx 02:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fijipedia and Blindlynx: Why are the stress marks being added back in? I don't see why it should matter that I cited an essay and not a policy. You restored incorrect spelling. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You had no reason to revert those edits apart from personal preference. Get consensus on the talk page. Fijipedia (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If someone recently added them in and I reverted them, I am unaware because I just saw them and removed them, I didn't check the revision history. It's not Wikipedia policy to use incorrect spelling unless you get consensus to correct it. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You didn't provide a reason for their removal, stress marks are not incorrect spelling—blindlynx 15:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please can someone clarify this period, for example by putting a bracket behind that figure, like (19yy-19yy)? Very unclear and the various start/end dates don't add up to 72 years. Thank you very much. 95.146.56.63 (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kyiv is Kyiv, not Kiev. Kharkiv is Kharkiv, not Kharkov. СолонийБурякУСпідниці (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• Chernobyl nuclear plant5.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved. A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use ((subst:requested move)). Do not use ((requested move/dated)) directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

• Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic → Soviet Ukraine
• Anthem of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic → Anthem of Soviet Ukraine
• Okruhas of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic → Okruhas of Soviet Ukraine
• Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic → Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of Soviet Ukraine
• Constitutions of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic → Constitutions of Soviet Ukraine
• Flag of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic → Flag of Soviet Ukraine
• Collectivization in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic → Collectivization in Soviet Ukraine
• Administrative divisions of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic → Administrative divisions of Soviet Ukraine
• Okrugs of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic → Okrugs of Soviet Ukraine
• Ministries of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic → Ministries of Soviet Ukraine

– To satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. In the decade after the Soviet Union disappeared and the subject underwent a WP:NAMECHANGE, the proposed name became the most commonly used in reliable sources.[1] It appears three times more commonly than the current title, and twice as often as the second-most common, Ukrainian SSR,[2] and since 2007 is more common than the two together.[3]  —Michael Z. 16:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose WP:CONSISTENT with all other Soviet republics. They should have similar titles. Unless all or at least most republics have had similar phenomenons. In that case, I could maybe support the move. Super Ψ Dro 20:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Furthermore. "Soviet Ukraine" is a name that could arguably also apply to Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic, Odesa Soviet Republic, Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets and Ukrainian Soviet Republic. Not the case with "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic". Super Ψ Dro 21:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: consistency, 1) WP:CRITERIAORDER places it below WP:recognizability, naturalness, WP:precision, and WP:conciseness in priority, all of which are served by the proposed change, 2) a quick Google Ngram search shows that at least some of the other Soviet republic article titles violate COMMONNAME as well, and 3) that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS shouldn’t stop us from improving this article.

Re: other obscure republics (two of which are not “Soviet Ukraine” by any stretch) I challenge you to find a single source that says “Soviet Ukraine” and means any of them. There is no conflict, and anyway, there is simply no problem because we have disambiguation.  —Michael Z. 21:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. Never seen this term. "Ukrainian SSR" is the usual shorthand. Walrasiad (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The commonname is almost certainly "Ukraine" (as reflected by the current article text), so the question here is a disambiguation one rather than a common name one. CMD (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Certainly, up to 1991 the name Ukraine would have best met the titling criteria.  —Michael Z. 16:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. Aside from not being consistent, some of the results for "Soviet Ukraine" seem to include "post-Soviet Ukraine". Mellk (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Good catch, but the effect effect is not significant for determining COMMONNAME.[4]  —Michael Z. 20:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Not sure about this. For example 110,000 results on Google Books for "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic", 129,000 results for "Soviet Ukraine" (including "post-Soviet Ukraine"), and 1,060,000 for "Ukrainian SSR". Even if we decide to use sources only from 1992 onwards and remove "post-Soviet Ukraine" results, there is no clear common name here. Mellk (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Those numbers are bogus. Go to the last page of results, and you get other bogus numbers: 645 shown of “about 6,940,000 results,”[5] 587 shown of “about 6,030,000 results,”[6] and 599 shown of “about 62,900,000 results.”[7] Google Ngram is meant for comparing frequencies. Google Book Search’s “totals” are broken three or more different ways.  —Michael Z. 03:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  What about Google Scholar?[8][9][10]. Looks like the same story. Mellk (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Scholar’s results counts seem to be reliable. So that part of the story does say the current title is not the common name, and the two most common vary by 6% in Scholar’s corpus.  —Michael Z. 03:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It does not show the proposed title is the common name, though. Removing "post-Soviet Ukraine" results especially. Mellk (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Removing “post-Soviet Ukraine” also removes sources that use both, throwing everything off in a way that’s not predictable. Doing so in Google Books searches gives confusing results.[11][12][13] I think the one title is used more in books and the other in academic articles, but comparing their relative weight is apples and oranges (in terms of what Google shows). Ngram remains the most reliable indicator.  —Michael Z. 15:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong oppose Ukrainian Soviet Republic is not the same as the Ukraine SSR; "Soviet Ukraine" refers to both -- 65.92.244.249 (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Soviet Ukraine redirects here anyway. The article Ukrainian Soviet Republic is already linked from this one, in a hat note and several times in the text.  —Michael Z. 15:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose per all above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose: Even if COMMONNAME was satisfied—and it doesn't seem like it—this would be a case where COMMONNAME might be trumped by the proper name. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  What does that mean? Is it related to any guideline?  —Michael Z. 03:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: If it’s changed to Soviet Ukraine, why not do the same for Byelorussian SSR to Soviet Byelorussia? It was the pre-1991 name for Belarus. 76.69.130.150 (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, all of the article titles on Soviet republics can be reexamined, with an eye to what they are called today rather than two generations ago.  —Michael Z. 15:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]