Talk:Kyiv: Difference between revisions
→Provisional move moratorium: Re: TaivoLinguist, “disruptive” RMs |
|||
Line 346: | Line 346: | ||
::* There is a trend away from Kiev and towards Kyiv. In a few years, I suspect Kyiv will be overwhelmingly dominant in scholarly sources. But Wikipedia is [[Wikipedia:NOTCRYSTAL|not a crystall ball]], so we should rush from extropolating trends into moving pages. — <b>[[User:Billhpike|BillHPike]]</b> <small>([[User talk:Billhpike|talk]], [[Special:contribs/Billhpike|contribs]])</small> 04:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC) |
::* There is a trend away from Kiev and towards Kyiv. In a few years, I suspect Kyiv will be overwhelmingly dominant in scholarly sources. But Wikipedia is [[Wikipedia:NOTCRYSTAL|not a crystall ball]], so we should rush from extropolating trends into moving pages. — <b>[[User:Billhpike|BillHPike]]</b> <small>([[User talk:Billhpike|talk]], [[Special:contribs/Billhpike|contribs]])</small> 04:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' While I, too, have great dislike for Moscow's expansionist policies, I do not think the COMMONNAME argument has been met to merit a change. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">[[User:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">Chris Troutman</span>]] ([[User talk:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">talk</span>]])</span> 01:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' While I, too, have great dislike for Moscow's expansionist policies, I do not think the COMMONNAME argument has been met to merit a change. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">[[User:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">Chris Troutman</span>]] ([[User talk:Chris troutman|<span style="color:#345">talk</span>]])</span> 01:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
:* Hi {{ping|Chris troutman}}, can you please move your comment to "Survey (september)" section - editors have been asked to add their comments in chronological order. Thanks. <small>(you can either delete my comment when you move yours, or move mine with yours, thanks)</small>--[[Special:Contributions/73.75.115.5|73.75.115.5]] ([[User talk:73.75.115.5|talk]]) 02:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC) |
|||
===Survey (September)=== |
===Survey (September)=== |
Revision as of 02:37, 8 September 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kyiv article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Kyiv was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
A special subpage has been created for discussing the name of the article, Talk:Kyiv/naming. Please take all naming discussion there! (Note: To edit content in the box above, please go to Talk:Kyiv/naming/old discussion list.) |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
|
|||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Requested move 1 July 2020
The result of the move request was: not moved. Procedural close due to offwiki canvassing. I am also enacting a provisional move moratorium of 2 years. Having this perennial request listed even every year is too much. I'm not sure about previous moratoriums, so some adjustments to this one are possible. If the Arbitration Committee chooses to examine this, I will of course defer to their respective decision. El_C 15:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Update: Since this was a scheduled move request, a new one will take place soon, before the moratorium comes into effect. El_C 16:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Second update: the matter is now before the Arbitration Committee. These proceedings are suspended pending their decision. El_C 11:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Dicussion unsuspended. Please feel free to mark new or dormant account with the {{spa}} tag to further aid the closer. My thinking is that this discussion should remain open longer than the usual one week, but I'll leave that at the discretion of the respective closer. El_C 17:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Note to closer
Please give me a heads up before closing so that I could resolve the matter of the moratorium's length. It is important this is accomplished before a decision is undertaken. Thanks. El_C 01:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Why? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- To reduce any potential angst related to the RM decision itself. El_C 02:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The length of a moratorium doesn't need some sort of consensus and so if you feel it important to announce in advance, I would suggest you just announce it. I mean in one sense you already did when you suspended the RM originally. bradv might be right that if the RM is closed as moving to Kyiv disruption will die down (that's certainly the argument he has made as a participant). Or he might not be and a moratorium will help the change settle in. But if the RM closes as no consensus or as staying at Kiev then repeated discussions will definitely be attempted and they are disruptive so a moratorium is appropriate. I support your feeling that such an action is helpful but think it should just happen rather than potentially interfere/hold-up the close of this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Struck owing to a moratorium already being in place. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)- Certainly, I will do my best to avoid that from happening. El_C 02:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- To reduce any potential angst related to the RM decision itself. El_C 02:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- El C, I disagree with this. The outcome of this RM has to be a factor in whether or not there is a moratorium. Moratoriums should only be used in response to disruption, and only if absolutely necessary. In this case, if the article moves, the potential for disruption changes. And if it closes without a consensus, the likelihood of new information being presented that requires a new discussion is increased. We can't continue to use move moratoriums simply as a procedural hoop to prevent or stifle discussion, nor should we be using the threat of a moratorium as a way to influence the discussion. In fact, all of the comments below that object to the move simply because they don't want to hear the question should be discarded by the closer. – bradv🍁 02:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, noted. But I disagree. I actually think it's key that the two matters are kept separate rather than influencing one another. That is exactly what I am aiming to avoid. Otherwise, I have no opinion about what the closer should or should not disregard. El_C 02:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- By way of example, consider this discussion, which I closed quite some time ago. There had been countless RM's on that article, and several lengthy move moratoriums. As it turns out, the article was just at the wrong title, and fixing that made the disruption stop (I don't believe there has been an RM since). Incidentally, in closing that discussion I had to ignore all the "oh no not again" votes and simply count the policy-based arguments that were presented. If I hadn't done that, perhaps they would still be fighting. I think there are some parallels to be drawn here. – bradv🍁 02:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting. Indeed, that may well be so. El_C 02:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Chairman is another recent example like that; and the well known Hillary Rodham Clinton and Yoghurt. Lev!vich 03:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I was thinking more along the line of Tulsa race massacre, actually. It is a perennial tendency, I would argue. But this is an especially acute case. El_C 03:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, definitely a perennial tendency, and in the real world, too. Unsatisfied people will continue to complain until they're either satisfied or convinced that their complaints are hopeless. We know we have consensus for something when everybody shuts up about it. "Consensus is what most will agree to and most of the rest will tolerate." Consensus is when most losers agree to lose. As long as there are repeated RMs with significant support, it's a sign that most losers are not agreeing to lose, i.e., there isn't consensus for the status quo.
- The other thing to think about is editor turn-over. How many editors who participated in this RM participated in 2019? How many who participated in 2019 participated in 2018? And so forth. If it's a new group of editors each time, it's not in any way disruptive to have the repeated discussions. To the contrary, it's productive, as we get fresh voices to look at updated data. Yes, for some editors who have been participating in every discussion for the past ten years, it can seem repetitive and frustrating. Those who feel that way should stop participating. I don't understand why the rest of the world should be prohibited from discussion the title of this article because a few people who have decided to participate in ten discussions about the title of this article are sick of participating in discussions about the title of this article. That seems like catering to a self-selecting few and the expense of everyone else, particularly newcomers. Lev!vich 03:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- This isn't really the space to discuss that in-depth. But suffice to say that strong feelings on the matter are likely to result in constant RMs, which may risks RM fatigue. I think it's best to pace ourselves when it comes to a rename of such import. El_C 03:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I was thinking more along the line of Tulsa race massacre, actually. It is a perennial tendency, I would argue. But this is an especially acute case. El_C 03:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Chairman is another recent example like that; and the well known Hillary Rodham Clinton and Yoghurt. Lev!vich 03:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting. Indeed, that may well be so. El_C 02:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- By way of example, consider this discussion, which I closed quite some time ago. There had been countless RM's on that article, and several lengthy move moratoriums. As it turns out, the article was just at the wrong title, and fixing that made the disruption stop (I don't believe there has been an RM since). Incidentally, in closing that discussion I had to ignore all the "oh no not again" votes and simply count the policy-based arguments that were presented. If I hadn't done that, perhaps they would still be fighting. I think there are some parallels to be drawn here. – bradv🍁 02:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, noted. But I disagree. I actually think it's key that the two matters are kept separate rather than influencing one another. That is exactly what I am aiming to avoid. Otherwise, I have no opinion about what the closer should or should not disregard. El_C 02:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Requested move 28 August 2020
The request to rename this article to Kyiv has been carried out.
If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag. |
Original move request 1 July 2020: Kiev → Kyiv – Since October 2019 when the 9 months ban/moratorium on requesting to change the name of the article from Kiev to Kyiv was established, the following updates have happened (per Atlantic Council's article from October 21, 2019 entitled Kyiv not Kiev: Why spelling matters in Ukraine’s quest for an independent identity, "A number of global heavyweights have recently adopted the Ukrainian-language derived 'Kyiv' as their official spelling for the country’s capital city, replacing the Russian-rooted 'Kiev'"
). Specifically, a couple of changes have happened: 1) all major English publications that used their own stylebook have made updates to their styleguides and now use Kyiv spelling, 2) all major English publications that use standard stylebooks (e.g., Associated Press Stylebook or Canadian Press Stylebook) are now following recent updates in those styleguides and are now using Kyiv, 3) IATA has switched to Kyiv and therefore all international airports have updated their English spelling to Kyiv, 4) BGN has switched to Kyiv and, therefore, all major geographical bodies followed suite and are now using Kyiv and, lastly, 5) The Library of Congress has switched to Kyiv and, therefore, all major library organizations followed suite and are now using Kyiv.
Below is a selection of a few of those major updates:
- bne IntelliNews: January 2006. Official quote from bne IntelliNews: "bne IntelliNews has been using Kyiv since it was founded in 2006" (source: https://www.intellinews.com/more-publications-switch-from-kiev-to-kyiv-and-ignore-the-chicken-thing-166136/?source=ukraine ; archived-source: http://archive.is/ZQEHD)
- CBC: January 2011 (previously Kyiv was also used by CBC from 1999 to 2004). Official quote from CBC: "CBC News adopted the spelling Kyiv for the city in 2011". (source: https://www.cbc.ca/news2/indepth/words/kiev-or-kyiv.html , archived-source: http://archive.is/kpvo0
- Canadian Press: January 2018. Official quote from the Canadian Press Stylebook 18th edition: "The Canadian Press stylebook adopts the Ukrainian rather than the Russian spelling of Ukrainian capital: Kyiv" source: https://www.thecanadianpress.com/writing-guides/the-canadian-press-stylebook/
- Toronto Star: January 2018. Official quote from the Toronto Star: "We [at Toronto Star] follow The Canadian Press style (which adopts the Ukrainian rather than the Russian spelling). It’s Kyiv." source: https://www.thestar.com/trust/2018/01/26/the-stars-style-committee-on-the-importance-of-language.html ; archived-source: http://archive.is/d50oE
- The Guardian, 13 February 2019, Official quote from The Guardian: "From February 13 the capital of Ukraine will be written as Kyiv at The Guardian". (source @The Guardian styleguide: https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-k ; archived-source @The Guardian styleguide: http://archive.is/r5OpE
- The Calvert Journal 2 April, 2019 Official quote from The Calvert Journal: "We have decided the time is right to change to Kyiv" (source: https://www.calvertjournal.com/articles/show/11100/kiev-kyiv-what-to-call-ukrainian-capital , archived-source: http://archive.is/hq4xW
- BGN (regulates what spelling is used for geographic names in maps) June 17, 2019. Official quote from BGN: "At its 398th meeting on June 11, 2019, the Foreign Names Committee of the United States Board on Geographic Names (BGN) voted unanimously to retire the spelling “Kiev” as a BGN Conventional name for the capital of Ukraine. The spelling “Kyiv” has been the BGN Approved name since 2006, and is now the only name available for standard use within the United States (U.S.) Government, per the authority of the BGN (source on BGN: http://geonames.nga.mil/gns/html/PDFDocs/BGNStatement_Kyiv.pdf, archived-source: http://archive.is/pLZlO
- Associated Press: 14 August, 2019. Official quote from AP: "We are making a significant change in our style for the Ukrainian capital city Kiev. It will henceforth be written in text, captions and datelines as Kyiv." (source on AP: https://blog.ap.org/announcements/an-update-on-ap-style-on-kyiv , archived-source: http://archive.is/ONA0S
- The Library of Congress: 12 September, 2019. Official quote from LOC: "In accordance with LC-PCC PS for 16.2.2.5, we have applied the ALA/LC Romanization Table for Ukrainian in the new authorized access point rather than using a form that reflects another romanization scheme. This form is “Kyïv (Ukraine)." (source on lOC (announcement): https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1909&L=PCCLIST&P=20135, archived-source: http://archive.is/XlarP ; source on LOC (entry): http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n81022031.html , archived-source: http://archive.is/BzK0T
- NPR: September 23, 2019. Official quote from NPR: "Guidance: The Capital Of Ukraine Is Spelled 'Kyiv'" (source on NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/memmos/2019/09/23/763509886/guidance-the-capital-of-ukraine-is-spelled-kyiv, archived-source: http://archive.is/Lx7Ch
- The Wall Street Journal: October 3, 2019. Official quote from WSJ: "After careful consideration, we have joined Associated Press and Webster’s New World College Dictionary (5th) in using the spelling Kyiv for the capital of Ukraine" (source on WSJ: https://blogs.wsj.com/styleandsubstance/2019/10/03/vol-32-no-9-kyiv/, archived-source: http://archive.is/wip/yk3Eh
- The Globe and Mail: October 10, 2019. Official quote from The Globe and Mail: "The Globe is changing its style on the capital of Ukraine from the Russian-derived "Kiev" to "Kyiv," the transliteration the Ukrainian government uses" (source The Globe and Mail's correspondent Adrian Morrow: https://twitter.com/adrianmorrow/status/1182340357255831552, archived-source: http://archive.is/cLGGZ
- BBC: October 14, 2019. Official quote from BBC: "From today, BBC News will be changing its spelling of the Ukrainian capital from #Kiev to #Kyiv, bringing us in line with the many international organizations, government agencies, international aviation industry members and media who’ve adopted this spelling." (source on BBC News Press Team @Twitter: https://twitter.com/bbcnewspr/status/1183707458642108416, archive-source: http://archive.is/PGhmq; source on BBC News Ukrainian: https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/news-49999939 , archived-source: http://archive.is/ap1vS ; source on BBC Style Guide: https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art20130702112133577, archived-source: http://archive.vn/SD07M
- The Washington Post: October 2019. Official quote from TWP: "The Washington Post changes its style guide for the capital of Ukraine, which henceforth will be Kyiv, and not Kiev. This change is effective immediately. These changes are in accordance with the way Ukrainian capital is spelled by Ukrainian institutions, as well by by other media organizations." (source from WP's correspondent Adam Taylor's Twitter: https://twitter.com/mradamtaylor/status/1184470206925676544 , archived-source from WP's correspondent Adam Taylor's Twitter: http://archive.is/yFzVy; source on Voice of America: https://ukrainian.voanews.com/a/kyiv-not-kiev/5126392.html, source-archived: http://archive.is/nL48F ; source on The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/starting-in-the-1970s-womens-first-names-were-included-in-post-references/2019/11/23/73dc1eb2-0d59-11ea-bd9d-c628fd48b3a0_story.html , archived-source: http://archive.is/ZrUos )
- The Economist, October, 29 2019. Official quote from The Economist: "Kyiv spelling is now used at The Economist for Ukraine's capital" (source news about this on Ukrinform: https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-society/2808601-the-economist-starts-using-kyiv-instead-of-kiev.html , archived-source: http://archive.is/ka7Lv
- Financial Times, October, 29 2019. Official quote from Financial Times: "Kyiv spelling is now used at Financial Times for Ukraine's capital" (source news about this on Ukrinform: https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-kyiv/2808219-financial-times-vidteper-pisatime-kyiv-zamist-kiev.html , archived-source: http://archive.is/wip/kh5YL
- IATA (regulates what spelling is used for geographic names in airports): October, 2019. (source: list of all cities worldwide at iata.org: https://www.iata.org/contentassets/5989fc2df9824de3826cccfd279f9409/slot-alleviation-status-ns20-covid19.pdf )
- The New York Times: November 18, 2019. Official quote from NYT: "Note: Days after this article was published, The New York Times changed its style of spelling for the capital of Ukraine to Kyiv, reflecting the transliteration from Ukrainian, rather than Russian. The change is reflected in articles published after Nov. 18. " (source from NYT's correspondent Andrew E. Kramer's Twitter: https://twitter.com/AndrewKramerNYT/status/1196496095184084997, archived-source from NYT's correspondent Andrew E. Kramer's Twitter: http://archive.is/wip/3Xqgm; source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/13/us/politics/kiev-pronunciation.html , archived-source: http://archive.is/KjrWw
- BuzzFeed: December 31, 2019. Official quote from BuzzFeed: "We updated our style to “Kyiv” to refer to Ukraine’s capital city. The “Kiev” spelling is transliterated from the Russian language, while "Kyiv" is from Ukrainian." (source on BuzzFeed Styleguide @Twitter: https://twitter.com/styleguide/status/1212079459282685954 , archived-source: http://archive.is/wip/0I4rB ; BuzzFeed Styleguide: https://www.buzzfeed.com/emmyf/buzzfeed-style-guide ; archived-source BuzzFeed Styleguide: http://archive.is/G2Y13
- Reuters, June 12, 2020. Official quote from Reuters: "From June 15 the capital of Ukraine will be written as Kyiv at @Reuters". (source Reuters' journalist Tommy Lund @Twitter: https://twitter.com/tommylundn/status/1271344841243471872, archived-source: http://archive.is/UqgwX; source @Reuters styleguide: http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=K#Kyiv.2C_not_Kiev ; archived-source @Reuters styleguide: http://archive.is/QZyqw
- Facebook, June 26, 2020. Official quote from Facebook: "After reviewing, we switched to using the page “Kyiv” to represent this region". (source: Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine (MFA of Ukraine) Dmytro Kuleba and MFA of Ukraine page CorrectUA, archived-source: http://archive.is/XKXoz --73.75.115.5 (talk) — 73.75.115.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Update to move request 29 August 2020: All of the recent changes of media organizations switching to Kyiv spelling, as mentioned by the Atlantic Council and as listed in this RM, are documented in great detail at Talk:Kiev/sources; this RM lists a selection of a few of those major updates. (Also details of the 9 months ban/moratorium on requesting to change the name of the article from Kiev to Kyiv that was in place since October 2019 till June 2020 can be found here and here)--73.75.115.5 (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Survey (July)
Editors please note: To leave your !vote and rationale for September, click on the following link: #Survey (September). P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 20:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose This was completely predictable, both in terms of its timing, but also in terms of its failure to address common usage. It lists a variety of style guides, but utterly fails to indicate whether or not those style guides have had any influence on actual usage, which is the measurement that Wikipedia uses to gauge "common usage". You have to prove that usage has changed. You don't prove usage by simply listing all the people who say "you should do this". You have to actually show that English speakers are paying attention to the "experts" and changing their usage. You've proven nothing other than the "experts" are talking about changing. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Let's test this new awareness of "Kyiv" out with the simplest of metrics, a Google search.
- Kiev -Kyiv -chicken (in the last month): 6.9 million
- Kyiv -Kiev -Dynamo (in the last month): 264 thousand
- It doesn't seem that actual usage has changed much. Reuters changed officially changed spelling on the 12th, but here are 4560 results of "Kiev -Kyiv -chicken Reuters" just in the last week.
- You have to prove your point with actual usage not dictates from "on high". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- So let's now fine-tune the example from Reuters to just News using the same search criteria for the last week:
- "Kiev -Kyiv -chicken Reuters" (last week, News): 894 results
- "Kyiv -Kiev -Dynamo Reuters" (last week, News): 564 results
- It seems that actual usage at Reuters is still about 1.5 to 1 in favor of "Kiev" in the News department.
- At the AP the situation isn't much different.
- "Kiev -Kyiv -chicken AP" (last week, News): 1380 results
- "Kyiv -Kiev -Dynamo AP" (last week, News): 752 results
- The same is true if I search for all News over the last week.
- "Kiev -Kyiv -chicken" (last week, News): 24,700 results
- Kyiv -Kiev -chicken" (last week, News): 14,100 results
- So nothing has changed in terms of actual usage in the last six months. In the news departments of the English-speaking world usage of "Kiev" over "Kyiv" is still about 2 to 1 even though the style guides are telling them to use "Kyiv". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- So let's now fine-tune the example from Reuters to just News using the same search criteria for the last week:
- Let's test this new awareness of "Kyiv" out with the simplest of metrics, a Google search.
- 1) RE Reuters News results
- Google search results are incredibly sensitive to 1) the time of the day you do the search, 2) Language preferences in Google, 3) IP location from which you search. Also you you used only
-chicken
and forgot to add-Dynamo
) Using US as location, and Ukrainian as the language and adding both-chicken
and-Dynamo
I just got quite a different result for Reuters (with Kyiv beating out Kiev by about 50%):--73.75.115.5 (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)- "Kiev -Kyiv -chicken -Dynamo Reuters" (last week, News): 509 results
- "Kyiv -Kiev -chicken -Dynamo Reuters" (last week, News): 706 results
- 2) RE AP News results
- Google search results are incredibly sensitive to 1) the time of the day you do the search, 2) Language preferences in Google, 3) IP location from which you search. Also you you used different exclusion flags for you 'Kiev' search and 'Kyiv' search (only
-chicken
in one case and only-Dynamo
in the other). Using US as location, and Ukrainian as the language and adding both-chicken
and-Dynamo
I just got quite a different result for AP (with roughly 1-to-1 ratio, but Kiev beating out Kyiv slightly by about 30%):--73.75.115.5 (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)- "Kiev -Kyiv -chicken -Dynamo Reuters" (last week, News): 984 results
- "Kyiv -Kiev -chicken -Dynamo Reuters" (last week, News): 685 results
- 3) RE All News results
- Google search results are incredibly sensitive to 1) the time of the day you do the search, 2) Language preferences in Google, 3) IP location from which you search. Also you you used different exclusion flags for you 'Kiev' search and 'Kyiv' search (only
-chicken
in one case and only-Dynamo
in the other). Using US as location, and Ukrainian as the language and adding both-chicken
and-Dynamo
I just got quite a different result for all news (with roughly 1-to-1 ratio, but Kyiv beating out Kiev slightly by about 10%):--73.75.115.5 (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)- "Kiev -Kyiv -chicken -Dynamo" (last week, News): 13,800 results
- "Kyiv -Kiev -chicken -Dynamo" (last week, News): 15,200 results
- Google search results are incredibly sensitive to 1) the time of the day you do the search, 2) Language preferences in Google, 3) IP location from which you search. Also you you used different exclusion flags for you 'Kiev' search and 'Kyiv' search (only
- Those numbers are completely fake. The real search result totals are only on the last page of search. (How can Taivo not know this after discussing this here for literally years?) See WP:GOOGLE. The number of results returned when I click on his links above are 190:184, 24:31, 12:12, 229:197 (Google will probably give you slightly different numbers). These searches are also full of foreign-language results, and should be restricted to English-language results. The supposed Reuters and AP searches are full of “photos from Reuters,” and don’t indicate what they’re supposed to indicate. —Michael Z. 2020-07-01 15:55 z
- I agree with @Mzajac: that results from TaivoLinguist are fake, made up and manipulative (using one exclusion
-chicken
in one case and a different one-Dynamo
in the other). As I clearly showed above in all examples, except for AP, Kyiv wins over Kiev by 10% to 50%.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with @Mzajac: that results from TaivoLinguist are fake, made up and manipulative (using one exclusion
- And those results are a red herring. Article titles are to be based on reliable English-language sources (WP:TITLE), and independent, reliable English-language sources (WP:COMMONNAME). Raw Google search results might be helpful, but result counts do not tell us this. WP:WIAN: “Raw counts from Google must be considered with extreme caution, if at all.” —Michael Z. 2020-07-01 18:12 z
- Those numbers are completely fake. The real search result totals are only on the last page of search. (How can Taivo not know this after discussing this here for literally years?) See WP:GOOGLE. The number of results returned when I click on his links above are 190:184, 24:31, 12:12, 229:197 (Google will probably give you slightly different numbers). These searches are also full of foreign-language results, and should be restricted to English-language results. The supposed Reuters and AP searches are full of “photos from Reuters,” and don’t indicate what they’re supposed to indicate. —Michael Z. 2020-07-01 15:55 z
- Oppose - so far nothing to change my mind from common usage. And as said above, even though some sources have officially changed to Kyiv, they still keep on using Kiev. That's not too official. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support per exhaustively-detailed nomination. On July 1, 2020, the time has finally arrived for Wikipedia to drop the outdated form "Kiev" and start using the 21st-century form "Kyiv". In the same manner that all the style guides and major publications in the English-speaking world depict Beijing rather than Peking, Mumbai rather than Bombay or Kolkata rather than Calcutta, so do these same guides and publications use Kyiv rather than Kiev. All of the WP:RELIABLE SOURCES are now on the side of change. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support The renaming suggestion is well sourced, highly detailed and convincing. It is also time that we as Wikipedians acknowledged that while our standards are meant to reflect common use, they also influence common use. I therefore find it far more important to rely on the types of sources used in the request to move than the google searches used in the opposition to it. Arianna the First (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Arianna the First (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
- Oppose - Still no evidence presented that "Kyiv" is in common usage in English language publications worldwide. Wikipedia's naming conventions do not allow for renaming to "Right Great Wrongs", but in view of the social changes now sweeping the US and other countries, perhaps it soon will. But until that actually happens, we still abide by Common Name rules. - BilCat (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose move - no evidence it's the common name. O.N.R. (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Old Naval Rooftops, here is the evidence. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support – per detailed request and Roman Spinner's note on native names' usage. SMiki55 (talk) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that SMiki55 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
- Oppose per the detailed evidentiary rebuttal of the nomination. ——Serial # 10:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - per evidence that actual usage hasn't changed. --Khajidha (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support – must be done Thug Rx (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC) — Thug Rx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Support – Almost every reliable source and English language style guide uses Kyiv at this point especially in publications from the last year. Notable AP and NYT updated thier style guides. Further i urge everyone to read WP:WIAN before taking raw counts from google as authoritatively indicating common usage particularly in light of other reliable source. Blindlynx (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- "Reliable sources" of English usage (the News in this case) use "Kiev" two to one over "Kyiv". The style guides suggest usage, but the actual news writers ignore them twice as often as they follow them. And you clearly didn't read the second major bullet of WP:WIAN where it says that news media are an important source of information. My search criteria were careful and properly constructed to show just News media, just within the most recent time frame, and using the proper search terms. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- I did read it. News sources aren't the only reliable sources regarding this. Authoritative references namely topographical databases and style guides should also be considered and for the most part use Kyiv.Blindlynx (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- "Reliable sources" of English usage (the News in this case) use "Kiev" two to one over "Kyiv". The style guides suggest usage, but the actual news writers ignore them twice as often as they follow them. And you clearly didn't read the second major bullet of WP:WIAN where it says that news media are an important source of information. My search criteria were careful and properly constructed to show just News media, just within the most recent time frame, and using the proper search terms. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. The most common English name/spelling is still Kiev. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support per detailed nomination. Would be odd to use different spelling from all of our reliable sources (and insonsistent with most similar articles, e.g. Lviv, Kharkiv, Dnipro, Zaporizhia, Kryvyi Rih, Mykolaiv, Luhansk et cetera). 3fingeredPete (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 3fingeredPete (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
- Support The common name in reliable sources, particularly high-quality ones, is clearly Kyiv. In light of the Ukrainian government's 2018 request to use Kyiv, I would also urged participants (and the closer) to take into account WP:NAMECHANGES. Calidum 14:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support a change to Kyiv per WP:MODERNPLACENAME and WP:NPOVTITLE. There's been a sea change in how to approach this since the last requested move in 2019. I haven't seen anyone mention NPOV, but I think neutrality plays a very important role here. First off, the official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian. It was 25 years ago now that the Ukrainian government adopted Kyiv as its standard Latinization. The name Kyiv means "belonging to Kyi", who, according to legend, was founder of the city. Ukraine's oldest English newspaper is named the Kyiv Post. The city's name is Київ in Ukrainian and Киев in Russian. Favoring the Russian transliteration of a Ukrainian place name reinforces the Russian pronunciation of the name and perpetuates a Russian colonialist mindset that denies Ukrainian autonomy. "For many Ukrainians today it is now associated with so-called “Russification” - banning the use of Ukrainian language in print and other actions by Russian Empire and then Soviet State to strengthen Russian linguistic and political positions in Ukraine." I would remind those invoking COMMONNAME that it also says
When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.
The U.S. Board on Geographic Names approved the spelling Kyiv in 2006 and in 2019 actually delisted "Kiev" as a conventional name. The sources listed by the nominator demonstrate that Kyiv has become the overwhelmingly preferred transliteration of reputable sources. gobonobo + c 17:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. It is worth mentioning that several of the supporters, including the OP, either have very few edits total, or at least very few recent edits. Given the history here, this is at best suspicious. We should consider that this discussion may well be being canvassed inappropriately.
- I find a few of the comments here thoroughly unconvincing.
- The fact that the Ukrainian government made a request is irrelevant to us. Usage by organisations from non-English-speaking countries like the Kyiv Post is irrelevant to us. And, while WP:NAMECHANGES certainly applies, note that (a) the official change was quite a long time ago now and (b) TaivoLinguist's evidence comes from the last couple of weeks.
- I see no issue with being "inconsistent" with the names of articles like Kryvyi Rih, since most English speakers will have never heard of the place. And I note with interest that Zaporizhia is used as an example, given that the transcription according to the official standard is Zaporizhzhia. We'll be "inconsistent" with Zaporizhia whatever we do.
- Arguments based on situations in China and India that aren't parallels to this one are as specious as they always have been.
- I note that the IP objects to removing "chicken" and "Dynamo" from search results. In reality, sources that use "Kiev" generally also refer to "Dynamo Kyiv", and sources that use "Kyiv" will often still use "chicken Kiev". It is more useful to include only results that refer to the city, not to things named after the city.
- The claim that Kiev is POV would imply that Kyiv is equally POV. If one is more POV than the other, then Kyiv has the greater POV because it's the neologism. After all, while Kiev may have begun life as a Russian transcription, it became the standard English-language name for the city in neutral sources. The question that we are asking is whether there is clear evidence that that has changed.
- In particular, the claim,
Favoring the Russian transliteration of a Ukrainian place name reinforces the Russian pronunciation of the name and perpetuates a Russian colonialist mindset that denies Ukrainian autonomy
is not an argument for NPOV. Because it treats "Kiev" as "the Russian transliteration of a Ukrainian place name", rather than an English word, and is based solely on Ukrainians' reactions to that word. It is implicitly an argument that we should be writing to appease Ukrainian people, i.e. from a Ukrainian POV. - The argument for WP:MODERNPLACENAME in the same comment is irrelevant since it's far from obvious that WP:MODERNPLACENAME doesn't imply Kiev.
- In particular, the claim,
- So, having dismissed most of the arguments raised for the change, I turn to the IP's argument and Taivo's counterargument, which really is the crux of the matter. There is no point in claiming that usage isn't changing, at least in writing. My impression is that if current trends continue, the most common name is likely to change soon, and we may well want to move this article within the next year or two.
- But what decided it for me was a quote from another comment above:
When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others
- particularly given that it was coupled with WP:NPOV. Even if I accept that Kyiv is the most common (and that is not clear to me), it has problems. It seems to have no standard pronunciation that meets the phonological requirements of the English language. And a lot of the arguments in favour seem to boil down to supporting the Ukrainian POV.
- But this is a close call IMO. Kahastok talk 18:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Per nom. I am amazed how people push the usage thing. Wikipedia lately has turned into "this is how lemmings call things" instead of "this is how things are called". This is lame and irritating. I presume if people still called Instanbul Byzantium, then the article in Wikipedia would be called Byzantium? This is nonsense. Mikus (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. The presented evidence seems like a big red herring that does not actually prove that current common usage has changed from "Kiev" to "Kyiv". Indeed, while this may constitute evidence that such a change may happen in the future, it does not mean it has already happened. A simple comparison of both terms in Google Trends show "Kiev" overwhelmingly preferred over "Kyiv" in search results (even in Ukraine, with Kiev comprising 71% of the cummulative searches for both terms). In English speaking countries (the ones we must pay attention to as per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:NCGN), Kiev is still most common with no less than ~85% of results. Some other cities have been brought as examples for the change, but those do constitute examples on why such move cannot happen just yet: Mumbai/Bombay, Beijing/Peking and Kolkata/Calcutta, all show a change in common usage from the previous Bombay/Peking/Calcutta to the new Mumbai/Beijing/Kolkata. This has not happened for Kiev/Kyiv. As per WP:MPN:
Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage.
The current common global usage is still Kiev, so that's the name we should prefer for the article.
- On a side note, Kahastok makes a convincing case for preserving the current title and I share his concerns about a possible canvassing taking place in this discussion. This seems a clear political issue in Ukraine, and many of the support !votes look like POVish pile-ons centered on how Wikipedia must seemingly right a great wrong with the city's name, as the Ukrainian government seems to be actively pressing for the "old" Kiev spelling to fall out of use. I must note that Wikipedia, as an independent online encyclopedia, cannot take any side on this issue nor serve as a soapbox to promote any particular political cause. We must limit ourselves to reflect what sources and common usage dictate, and on this issue it's clear Kiev is still the most commonly-used term for the city. Impru20talk 19:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's preference of common name instead of official name is idiotic. This is not just about Kiev/Kyiv, but, say cassette tape instead of compact cassette. Wikipedia became the bastion of illiterate and uninformed. Mikus (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Go and get a consensus for changing the current Wikipedia's policy on WP:COMMONNAME if you don't like it, but saying that it's "idiotic" only because of not agreeing with it won't grant you the upper hand in any discussion. Impru20talk 20:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- And also, who the heck calls it a compact cassette? That may be the technical term but it's been called a cassette tape by everyone since I was using them in the 1970s when it surpassed my old 8-track tape player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- I do recognize that this topic is prime real estate for Ukrainian trolls, canvassed for this purpose. It would not surprise me at all if the sons of the motherland are responding to either an official call or an influential voice in the in-language media to troll Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, User:TaivoLinguist. Can you tell us which Wikipedians you’re labelling “Ukrainian trolls,” or are all Ukrainians “trolls,” or is it just that everyone who disagrees with you on this issue must be a member of some trollish nation driven by their genes or citizenship? Your remark is deeply offensive and it’s already encouraging others to take up the call. Please reconsider your remark. —Michael Z. 2020-07-01 21:59 z
"and it’s already encouraging others to take up the call."
Really? And how are these "others" finding out about these comments? Sounds like you just proved he's right! - BilCat (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)- Hi, User:BilCat. Are you implying that Taivo has been canvassing non-Wikipedians to come here and chime in to agree with his comment? Are you defending the comment? What exactly are you implying? —Michael Z. 2020-07-01 22:58 z
- Uh, no. You were implying that Taivo's comments would cause more people to come here to oppose him because they were offended. But how would they know about his comments if they weren't being canvassed off-wiki? Hmmm? - BilCat (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, User:BilCat. Are you implying that Taivo has been canvassing non-Wikipedians to come here and chime in to agree with his comment? Are you defending the comment? What exactly are you implying? —Michael Z. 2020-07-01 22:58 z
- Yeah, I think they are and will be coming out of the woodwork.. as if the entire country of Ukraine has marked this day on the calendars. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Like the IP who started this--nothing whatsover on Wikipedia until he admits to gathering his evidence "in preparation" for the big day. He came here for one purpose and one purpose only. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, well, as far as I see the IP nominator had this post prepared since at least 29 June, and the initial filling of this RM was almost automatic once it was 1 July, with a "TBA" comment in anticipation of the copy-paste. It would seem as if the RM came just because of the lifting of the moratorium, rather than because of an actual change in common usage having happened or being demonstrable. Impru20talk 21:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Like the IP who started this--nothing whatsover on Wikipedia until he admits to gathering his evidence "in preparation" for the big day. He came here for one purpose and one purpose only. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- I do recognize that this topic is prime real estate for Ukrainian trolls, canvassed for this purpose. It would not surprise me at all if the sons of the motherland are responding to either an official call or an influential voice in the in-language media to troll Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's preference of common name instead of official name is idiotic. This is not just about Kiev/Kyiv, but, say cassette tape instead of compact cassette. Wikipedia became the bastion of illiterate and uninformed. Mikus (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- so much for assume good faith... blindlynx (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- WP:AGF means that good faith should be assumed, but obviously evidence may point to the contrary. As of currently, all evidence points to this RM having been filled because of the moratorium having expired, not because of any sensible new reason about any change in the common usage of Kiev/Kyiv that may bring a different result to previous discussions (specially when even Wikipedia's policy on WP:COMMONNAME is being dubbed as "idiotic" because it does not bend particularly well to the the cause of having this moved to "Kyiv").
- Note that the previous RM (which resulted in a strong consensus against any move) took place between 26 October and 3 November 2019. If you check the dates of the links provided to support this proposal, you'd see that almost all of them are previous to the last RM, and none of them revolve around the actual common usage of the proposed term, which is the issue that, ultimately, is preventing all these RMs from succeeding once and once and once and once again. I believe it's nigh to disruptive and an abuse of process to open a RM on a very conflicting issue just because you can, on the exact moment the moratorium is lifted, rather than because of there being any new sensible reason that can sway the community's consensus in a different direction. Attempting to bore the hell out of all opposers until there is no one left to oppose what seems a very clear attempt to right what is perceived as an historical wrong is not how Wikipedia works. Impru20talk 22:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- a good number of reliable sources have changed since the moratorium was put in place. it's reached the point where almost every style guide and place names registry uses Kyiv. Just because people waited for the moratorium to expire to propose the change does not invalidate good faith. blindlynx (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Of the provided sources (which btw, do not prove a change in common usage) only four are from after the previous RM, and just two are from 2020. Nonetheless, stop the charade: this RM has been set up in Twitter to canvass people into having this article moved. That pretty much invalidates the whole RM, since it's been a conscious attempt to game and disrupt Wikipedia by creating the illusion of a strong consensus for the move, when never has been one. Impru20talk 01:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- a good number of reliable sources have changed since the moratorium was put in place. it's reached the point where almost every style guide and place names registry uses Kyiv. Just because people waited for the moratorium to expire to propose the change does not invalidate good faith. blindlynx (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. People here often forget how much Wikipedia shapes common usage nowadays, not just reflects it. Ausir (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Ausir (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
- That has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on article naming. - BilCat (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Sorry, but no. What you say goes against the second of Wikipedia's five pillars, under which we must explicitly avoid advocacy. Independently of how Wikipedia may be regarded by outside readers, it is not among Wikipedia's goals to "shape common usage"; we only reflect on it. Supporting this move in order to have Wikipedia help influence and raise the visibility of a particular agenda is outrightly contrary to its spirit, and it's worrying that several of the support !votes have been explicit on this motive. Impru20talk 23:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've never heard this before from an administrator... basing a move on Wikipedia because Wikipedia "shapes common usage nowadays, not just reflects it." That goes against all we stand for in policy and guidelines. I'm actually shocked at this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it's a goal to shape common usage. Just that it does anyway. I'm not saying the article should be moved in order to shape usage but that the current online usage of the current article name is shaped partly by Wikipedia itself and pretending it doesn't doesn't change it. Ausir (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's not true. The page for Turin (which should probably merit a RM someday) is titled like that in Wikipedia as of now, yet current Google Trends show that "Torino" (the official local name) has already vastly surpassed the usage of "Turin". This is not the case for Kiev. So the issue of whether Wikipedia shapes common usage is not only unfortunate under WP's goals, but also of negligible effect, if any (factually, you'll get to this Wikipedia article by typing either Kiev or Kyiv, because of the second being a redirect and being used in-text throughout the article). Impru20talk 00:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it's a goal to shape common usage. Just that it does anyway. I'm not saying the article should be moved in order to shape usage but that the current online usage of the current article name is shaped partly by Wikipedia itself and pretending it doesn't doesn't change it. Ausir (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've never heard this before from an administrator... basing a move on Wikipedia because Wikipedia "shapes common usage nowadays, not just reflects it." That goes against all we stand for in policy and guidelines. I'm actually shocked at this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support - per WP:MPN, and WP:NPOV. Tāwhiwhi (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC) — Tāwhiwhi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note- new account only edit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- This account was created only four days ago and this one is its first (and so far only) edit. What's going on here? It's been several sleeper accounts already suddenly re-activating to support this RM right now. Impru20talk 00:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Long overdue. Common usage is Kyiv in reliable sources. Sure, Wikipedia should not lead a name change but it should also not actively stand in the way. Some consideration, however little, should be given to the official name. Whether we like to admit it or not Wikipedia has a large influence. We are like a boulder blocking the stream and complaining about the amount of water flowing. Let's get the fuck out of the way. The most trusted sources have accepted the name change and so should we. Some say that this is advocacy that is not permitted on Wikipedia. Advocating keeping an old name, despite evidence showing a change is needed, is also against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: agree with your points that switching to Kyiv on English WP is long over due, since practically all reliable sources have already switched over the course of 2019-2020. Also, I'm utterly surprised that nobody has mentioned thus far that
even the MOST stubborn English encyclopedia in the world - Encyclopedia Britannica switched to Kyiv on November 25, 2019
: https://www.britannica.com/place/Kyiv. Let me repeat it, so everyone could hear: even the slowest and most conservative encyclopedia in the world, Britannica, switched to Kyiv spelling a little over half a year ago. If today English Wikipedia doesn't follow in Britannica's footsteps, it would mean there's a series issue with the part of WP community that keeps advocating (against overwhelming evidence) to keep it 'Kiev' by all and every means possible.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)- This comment coming from the OP of a RM who has been demonstrated has being set up on Twitter to massively influence a move of this article is almost offensive. At the very least, attempt not to depict Wikipedia as some short of advocate group when it is you who are advocating an agenda. Impru20talk 10:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: agree with your points that switching to Kyiv on English WP is long over due, since practically all reliable sources have already switched over the course of 2019-2020. Also, I'm utterly surprised that nobody has mentioned thus far that
- Comment I added this discussion to WP:CENT. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support per Roman Spinner and Coffeeandcrumbs, whose boulder metaphor resonates well. If Russia still incorporated Ukraine within its borders, this would be a much tougher question. But the Russians have been gone already for 3 decades, and the indigenous people are telling us what the correct spelling of their city's name is, which is based upon its founder Kyi. The canvassing going on is troubling, but it wouldn't be happening if WP just got with the program already like almost everyone else has. StonyBrook (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Just because Kiev is located in Ukraine doesn't mean that we need to use the Ukrainian spelling in English. Dublin is not referred to as Baile Atha Cliath. 2A02:A311:433F:5A80:E10D:F069:4FB0:281E (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC) — 2A02:A311:433F:5A80:E10D:F069:4FB0:281E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Not a fair comparison. It is just a spelling tweak, not an alternate name as in the case of Dublin. And Kiev was the Russian spelling in English, so why is that superior? StonyBrook (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Kiev is easier to spell and pronounce in English. Names of major cities are typically translated, not just transliterated. Moscow, Jerusalem and Cairo are the preferred spellings in English, not Moskva, Yerushalayim/al-Quds and al-Qahira. Also, Kiev is fairly evenly divided as far as the usage of the Russian and Ukrainian languages is concerned. 2A02:A311:433F:5A80:E10D:F069:4FB0:281E (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that it is ever so slightly easier to pronounce Kiev. I don't know about the breakdown of usage, but I haven't heard of any significant movement in Russia, Israel or Egypt to get those iconic capitol names changed to the transliterations, but I sure am seeing it here. StonyBrook (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- The question is whether the existence of movements seeking to change a name is enough for the Wikipedia name to change. In my opinion it remains the best option just to use whatever name is the most common in English, which still is Kiev. 2A02:A311:433F:5A80:E10D:F069:4FB0:281E (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- The most common usage, in English-language reliable sources in 2020, is Kyiv.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- That is simply not true. These sources you post do not reflect a change in common usage, only that some media outlets are making the change from Kiev to Kyiv. This could very well mean that common usage will follow suit in the future, but it hasn't as of currently, which is the issue at discussion right now. Impru20talk 09:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- The most common usage in English is Kiev... it is the English spelling of the city. And it's not a question of the pronunciation. No matter how it gets spelled in English, Kiev or Kyiv, the pronunciation will be the same.... key-ev. No one will really pronounce it different just because it's spelled different. Like in the USA, few would pronounce Quebek as Kuh-bek... most will say qwa-bek. It will be said Key-ev for 100 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- "Kiev" isn't a Russian word any more than "Moscow" is. It's the English name of the city and until that simple fact changes, then this question is simply moot. The evidence is unequivocal despite nationalists' best efforts to cherry pick style guides as if they were actual usage data. Requests by the Ukrainian government are important to the State Department and the Foreign Ministry, as well as to any organization that needs institutional permissions and individual visas to work in Ukraine, but irrelevant to Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- The most common usage in English is Kiev... it is the English spelling of the city. And it's not a question of the pronunciation. No matter how it gets spelled in English, Kiev or Kyiv, the pronunciation will be the same.... key-ev. No one will really pronounce it different just because it's spelled different. Like in the USA, few would pronounce Quebek as Kuh-bek... most will say qwa-bek. It will be said Key-ev for 100 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- That is simply not true. These sources you post do not reflect a change in common usage, only that some media outlets are making the change from Kiev to Kyiv. This could very well mean that common usage will follow suit in the future, but it hasn't as of currently, which is the issue at discussion right now. Impru20talk 09:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- The most common usage, in English-language reliable sources in 2020, is Kyiv.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- The question is whether the existence of movements seeking to change a name is enough for the Wikipedia name to change. In my opinion it remains the best option just to use whatever name is the most common in English, which still is Kiev. 2A02:A311:433F:5A80:E10D:F069:4FB0:281E (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that it is ever so slightly easier to pronounce Kiev. I don't know about the breakdown of usage, but I haven't heard of any significant movement in Russia, Israel or Egypt to get those iconic capitol names changed to the transliterations, but I sure am seeing it here. StonyBrook (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Kiev is easier to spell and pronounce in English. Names of major cities are typically translated, not just transliterated. Moscow, Jerusalem and Cairo are the preferred spellings in English, not Moskva, Yerushalayim/al-Quds and al-Qahira. Also, Kiev is fairly evenly divided as far as the usage of the Russian and Ukrainian languages is concerned. 2A02:A311:433F:5A80:E10D:F069:4FB0:281E (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not a fair comparison. It is just a spelling tweak, not an alternate name as in the case of Dublin. And Kiev was the Russian spelling in English, so why is that superior? StonyBrook (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Aside of the explicit canvassing issues below, I've seen that the Ukrainian government launched a renewed campaign through Twitter on 29 June ([8]), actively pressing organisations (the CNN in this case) into changing the city name's transliteration. The tweet has over 2k likes. This, coupled with the lifting of the moratorium on 1 July and this RM having been planned (and a canvassing organized) through the social networks since several days prior, only adds to the already growing concerns that a particular agenda is being pursued here.
- I should once again remind the people involved about WP:ADVOCACY:
Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy.
While it'd perfectly logical for the article to be moved to Kyiv once and if common usage shows that such change has happened, Wikipedia cannot be used as a channel to promote or help further such change in common usage, as some editors have explicitly voiced. The move should happen when and if such change happens naturally, but we cannot artificially enforce it ourselves. Impru20talk 10:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - I can't believe this perennial is back again. Per WP:COMMONNAME, Kiev. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose The city is already known as Kiev in the western world and is presented as Kiev literally everywhere. Gerg2013 (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support - This seems to come down to whether we emphasize the
major international organizations, major English-language media outlets
part of WP:COMMONNAME or theA search engine may help
part. Many of the opposing arguments above seem to take the form of "it doesn't matter if so many organizations formally use Kyiv if they still commonly write Kiev". I err on the side of the former. It's the editorial board of these organizations that I think we should be looking to, not specific instances where employees are lagging behind. That the CBC, BBC, NYT, WaPo, AP, Guardian, Economist, Globe, Reuters, yada yada all say they use Kyiv is important. That one can find google hits to the contrary is secondary. As has been pointed out, Google hits are complicated to qualify given the number of low quality sources, duplicates, and unrelated topics they'll include. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)- You mention "That the CBC, BBC, NYT, WaPo, AP, Guardian, Economist, Globe, Reuters, yada yada all say they use Kyiv is important." But is it really when they don't always practice what they preach? I quickly pulled up reuters from today or reuters/NYT this month, and CBC from this month, BBC. The others do the same thing. And that doesn't take into account sources such as Straits Times, etc. Saying you will be using something but not doing it or doing so sporadically means you should not be taking what they say as very important. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding the fact that the BBC example provided by User:Fyunck(click) is from BBC News in Portuguese (although we are indeed discussing the usage of English language here and not that of Portuguese), a bigger problem is that User:Fyunck(click)'s entire argument is deeply faulty: all of the English media organizations listed above by Rhododendrites have indeed switched to Kyiv spelling during 2019-2020 time frame (as evidenced by their official announcement of that); the fact that a couple of their journalists have not carefully read the Styleguide/Stylebook for their publication, just speaks about the lack of professionalism on their part (and by no means would I call this an intentional "sabotage" of these few journalists (nor would I call them "rogue journalists", as some people here described them), because the the very numbers speak against it: a simple check shows that, for example, on Reuters there were hundreds of articles that used correct Kyiv spelling over the last month of August (and only a couple that incorrectly used Kiev, which represent a mere 2-3% of the entire body of Reuters articles that used Kyiv last month).--73.75.115.5 (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
But is it really when they don't always practice what they preach?
yes. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- You mention "That the CBC, BBC, NYT, WaPo, AP, Guardian, Economist, Globe, Reuters, yada yada all say they use Kyiv is important." But is it really when they don't always practice what they preach? I quickly pulled up reuters from today or reuters/NYT this month, and CBC from this month, BBC. The others do the same thing. And that doesn't take into account sources such as Straits Times, etc. Saying you will be using something but not doing it or doing so sporadically means you should not be taking what they say as very important. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Off-wiki canvassing
Extended content
|
---|
I just found out this from earlier on 1 July:
There are several more comments from today, discussing this with other accounts (which are private so I can't see what they say, but they are clearly commenting about us and not in a very nice way): This user has been also interacting with another (declaring himself as pro-Ukrainian) who is currently commenting on the various responses in this discussion ([16], [17], [18], [19]). On the Kiev/Kyiv issue, this account has also claimed that This explains why all of these sudden new accounts/sleepers re-activation. Do you think this is funny? This whole POVish-motivated RM is an insult to intelligence and a gross violation of WP:CANVASSING, a fake attempt at attempting to show an illusion of consensus by gathering similarly-minded editors throughout the social networks. The OP should withdraw this RM or else this should probably be brought to WP:ANI so that appropiate actions are taken. This is purely disruptive. Impru20talk 01:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
|
Survey (August)
If you !voted above, then there is no need to !vote again below. Feel free to respond to other editors, but please do not !vote twice in this move request. |
- Support per WP:COMMONNAME as evidenced at User:Levivich/Kyiv (another list is at Talk:Kiev/sources). The biggest difference between now and the RMs in 2019 is that at this point in time, just about every single major source uses the spelling "Kyiv", not just in their style guides, but also in their publications. This includes academic and non-academic sources. The comparison is not even close. This was a debate for a long time, but now the debate, in the real world, is over, and everyone is spelling it "Kyiv". We should, too. Lev!vich 18:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- One thing though is you list Kiev/sources. Those may be sources that "say" they have switched to Kyiv, but in practice it's spotty. I just read articles today at Reuters, NYT, and CBC that use Kiev. That list is unreliable and updated by those who prefer Kyiv. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- No doubt, some publishers still publish articles with the spelling "Kiev", even though they said (e.g. in a style guide update) that they would use "Kyiv", and even though other articles they publish use "Kyiv". I think, on balance, even among these sources, "Kiev" is the rare mistake, and "Kyiv" is the standard. For example, you posted a Reuters article from today that used "Kiev". Here are three others from today that use "Kyiv": [25] [26] [27] and here is Reuter's Ukraine section; clicking on the various articles shows that "Kyiv" is used almost all the time, with "Kiev" being a rare exception. Here are the search results for "Kiev" at Reuters.com: only three articles this month used "Kiev". Here are the search results for "Kyiv" at Reuters.com: 10 articles in the last two days. As I said, it's not even close. You posted a NYT article from this month that uses "Kiev", which is actually a reprint of a Reuters article. But here are two articles from today at The New York Times (own byline) that use "Kyiv": [28] [29] You posted a CBC article from this month that uses "Kiev". Here's one that uses "Kyiv": [30] Even if you remove Reuters, NYT, and CBC from the list, there are still a whole bunch of other outlets on that list that use "Kyiv". Lev!vich 19:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- But not exclusively. And that list does not include all the sources that do use Kiev because nobody cares about it that uses Kiev. All I'm saying is that the list "may" be correct in who says they will officially use Kyiv, but it is not correct in who actually follows that practice. That makes that list less important than your original statement suggests. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- The list in my user space is a list of examples of actual recent usage, i.e. who follows the practice. No comment on the other list. Lev!vich 23:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- You have Reuters listed and they are all over the place in usage. With that one not being true as far as "practice" the others are all suspect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- No, Reuters is not "all over the place in usage". I just painstakingly demonstrated, with links and examples, that Reuters used "Kyiv" ten times just in the last couple days, but used "Kiev" only three times in the last month. That's not "all over the place in usage", that's overwhelmingly using "Kyiv".
- Look, one thing is clear: Reuters uses "Kyiv", and so does pretty much everybody else. That's the point of people putting forward all these lists filled with examples. Now, those opposing this move, if they actually had a COMMONNAME argument, would be able to produce a similar list of sources using "Kiev". Not one or two examples. Not one or two sources. But dozens upon dozens of examples. Because there are dozens upon dozens of examples of "Kyiv".
- Now, maybe some think that as long as there is anyone using "Kiev", as long as we can find even one example, then we should still spell is "Kiev". Maybe some think that we shouldn't change it to "Kyiv" until no one in the world is using "Kiev" anywhere. Maybe some think we should be the last people in the world to adopt the new spelling. I don't. "Kyiv" is the common name, per the overwhelming number of examples of usage, plus all the style guide changes, plus all the official name changes. "I found an exception!" doesn't persuade me, and it doesn't undercut that "Kyiv" is the commonly-used spelling of the city in English. Lev!vich 15:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- You have Reuters listed and they are all over the place in usage. With that one not being true as far as "practice" the others are all suspect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- The list in my user space is a list of examples of actual recent usage, i.e. who follows the practice. No comment on the other list. Lev!vich 23:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- But not exclusively. And that list does not include all the sources that do use Kiev because nobody cares about it that uses Kiev. All I'm saying is that the list "may" be correct in who says they will officially use Kyiv, but it is not correct in who actually follows that practice. That makes that list less important than your original statement suggests. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- No doubt, some publishers still publish articles with the spelling "Kiev", even though they said (e.g. in a style guide update) that they would use "Kyiv", and even though other articles they publish use "Kyiv". I think, on balance, even among these sources, "Kiev" is the rare mistake, and "Kyiv" is the standard. For example, you posted a Reuters article from today that used "Kiev". Here are three others from today that use "Kyiv": [25] [26] [27] and here is Reuter's Ukraine section; clicking on the various articles shows that "Kyiv" is used almost all the time, with "Kiev" being a rare exception. Here are the search results for "Kiev" at Reuters.com: only three articles this month used "Kiev". Here are the search results for "Kyiv" at Reuters.com: 10 articles in the last two days. As I said, it's not even close. You posted a NYT article from this month that uses "Kiev", which is actually a reprint of a Reuters article. But here are two articles from today at The New York Times (own byline) that use "Kyiv": [28] [29] You posted a CBC article from this month that uses "Kiev". Here's one that uses "Kyiv": [30] Even if you remove Reuters, NYT, and CBC from the list, there are still a whole bunch of other outlets on that list that use "Kyiv". Lev!vich 19:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- One thing though is you list Kiev/sources. Those may be sources that "say" they have switched to Kyiv, but in practice it's spotty. I just read articles today at Reuters, NYT, and CBC that use Kiev. That list is unreliable and updated by those who prefer Kyiv. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Kiev is used more than Kyiv in the English language, as proven by comparing Google search results of Kiev/Kyiv-related terms between quotation marks. (For instance: "Kiev" 2020 shows over 2x more results than "Kyiv" 2020 - I add the years in order to get more recent content.) You guys should try. For any disputes of this sort I am systematically in favour of using the name that is most the commonly used in English, ironically, per WP:COMMONNAME. --Spafky (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Google search results are not accurate, especially the number of "hits" displayed on the first page of results. See e.g. Criticism of Google#Possible misuse of search results, WP:GNUM (specifically WP:GYNOT), and WP:GOOGLEHITS. Lev!vich 19:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Spafky, you’re reinforcing misunderstandings about COMMONNAME. Not a great way to launch the re-opening of this discussion. It asks us to consider the most commonly used name in “reliable English-language sources,” advises us against relying on Google’s web search, and then to exclude Wikipedia results. And, of course, read WP:GOOG on how not to fall for Google’s completely inaccurate estimate of results. —Michael Z. 19:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support In terms of raw usage, the numbers don't actually point to this move. But given the trends (and more importantly, the explanations for those trends) in how reliable sources use the name, the move seems proper and reasonable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support I can already feel myself regretting joining this mess. I think some arguments above re WP:COMMONNAME seem to miss the point, namely none of them have an objective foundation or criteria to evaluate against. Thus, all those COMMONNAME arguments end up being anecdotal. We're not going to reach any logical conclusion by considering WP:COMMONNAME alone on this matter, as it isn't specialised to address place name disputes and is thus lacking in relevant objective criteria. WP:WIAN fills this gap and gives us an objective set of criteria to assess against to determine the common name, and indeed WP:NCGN is the specific guideline for article titles for geographic places. That guideline is even kind enough to give specific sites, atlases and services to look at! Analysing their advice...
Disinterested, authoritative reference works are almost always reliable if they are current.
(omitting the list, but see at WIAN) Giving examples like (links go to source) Encyclopædia Britannica. Atlases (I have no access to these, someone want to check?) The Times Comprehensive Atlas, National Geographic, Oxford Atlas of the World, Collins World Atlas, Penguin (this one I could check–Kyiv), ditto (lacking access) for gazetteers and maps (although, for maps I can check, and WIAN permits online ones, the widely used Google Maps and Bing Maps and Apple Maps do all use "Kyiv"). As for governments, we have Geographic Names Information System / BGN (of the US government, also recommended by UK govt), The United Nations (noting the caveat that neither of these shows 'conventional' usage). CIA World Factbook. All these resources use "Kyiv" (except the atlases, which I'm unsure of as I cannot check). CIA World Factbook and the US BGN seem to be the major ones here, since those being changed seems to result in changes elsewhere.English-language news media can also be very reliable sources.
Others have provided links to show most major English RS now using "Kyiv" in their style guides.- Regarding Google Scholars and Google Books,
But even a widely recognized name change will take time to be reflected in such searches, as they may still include references to the place name before the change.
, nevertheless here are the ngram results. Further, WP:WIAN discourages most forms of raw number usage,Google News and Lexis-Nexis search results can provide a quick guide to the relative predominance of alternative names across the media as a whole, provided the search parameters are properly set, but as with all raw search numbers, they should be used with caution.
Raw counts from Google must be considered with extreme caution, if at all.
and linking to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Search_engine_issues
- Strong support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support per nom. The fact that the given sources above (to mention some: Reuters, Associated Press, The Washington Post, and even Library of Congress of the United States) have switched to using Kyiv in their "manuals of style." Even the longtime Britannica has switched to "Kyiv" (https://www.britannica.com/place/Kyiv), so its time to use the official spelling. I agree with Levivich, Google hits test is commonly misused, and as per WP:GOOGLEHITS: "Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. A more detailed description of the problems that can be encountered using a search engine to determine suitability can be found at Wikipedia:Search engine test." Found also a passage at Wikipedia:Search engine test#Neutrality: "As such, Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles – only of popular ones. Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Opposefor the same reason I always oppose, because "Kiev" is the COMMONNAME in English, despite claims that is not. Also, the re-opening is not valid, and this should be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Uh, you don't get to !vote twice — that is not valid. El_C 08:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have checked to see if I had voted before in this particular RfC, which is one of many that have been opened on this subject within the past 15 years or so, but in all fairness to myself, stuff like that is going to happen when an RfC is closed down and then re-opened after a long period of time. I'm afraid I don't see the justification for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Suspending for July and restarting in August is not such a long time — I don't accept that. El_C 23:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- You should try to WP:Assume good faith. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Always. But I'm not seeing how I failed to do so. If I've given the impression that this is so, it was wholly unintentional. El_C 00:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- To be honest, the general tone of your response to BMK came across as somewhat accusatory. I am confident that you did not mean to give off such an impression. Kurtis (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose ~ exactly what BMK said, both points; happy days, LindsayHello 08:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support. At this point in time "Kyiv" is the WP:COMMONNAME spelling in English. Those who believe otherwise are indulging their own nostalgia or haven't kept up with the current trend. Even the New York Times changed its spelling to Kyiv in November 2019, and most all of the major anglophone media use Kyiv. The same is the case for reliable books. Softlavender (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- The Google Ngrams prove otherwise.[31] Rreagan007 (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- The Google Ngrams you searched would include false positive results like "Chicken Kiev" and so forth. Also, they only go to 2019. Nevertheless, the large drop in "Kiev" after 1995 proves the point. Here's a better, but still not totally accurate, Ngram, which shows an even more pronounced drop: [32]. NGrams make the trendline clear, but they don't quite answer the question for us, particularly given that it's now August 2020, and thus the NGrams corpus won't include any recent publications. Lev!vich 16:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- In fairness, yours also has false positives for Dynamo Kyiv - and given the search terms you've chosen those will be more common. Kahastok talk 17:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- The Google Ngrams you searched would include false positive results like "Chicken Kiev" and so forth. Also, they only go to 2019. Nevertheless, the large drop in "Kiev" after 1995 proves the point. Here's a better, but still not totally accurate, Ngram, which shows an even more pronounced drop: [32]. NGrams make the trendline clear, but they don't quite answer the question for us, particularly given that it's now August 2020, and thus the NGrams corpus won't include any recent publications. Lev!vich 16:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- The Google Ngrams prove otherwise.[31] Rreagan007 (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Google Ngrams only go up to 2019. It's now September 2020. All major reliable sources use "Kyiv"; even the Even the New York Times changed its spelling to Kyiv in November 2019. Softlavender (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Agree that "Kyiv" is WP:COMMONNAME per media, use in international relations, etc. Carter (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per the many arguments against moving the page. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom and reasons given by other users above. "Kyiv" seems to have overtaken "Kiev" in reliable sources, media, international relations, etc. (And, as mentioned by User:Gobonobo and User:Kahastok above, WP:COMMONNAME also says
When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.
). Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC) - Support While Kiev still has more Google hits, assessing COMMONNAME also requires taking into account whether quality trumps quantity (e.g. 1 bot-created webpage isn't more important than 2 mainstream media articles). For instance, the fact that Google Maps still uses Kiev, could explain a lot of automated results. I give a lot of weight to the numerous official institutions and media organisations indicating that they use Kyiv. I doubt any of us in fact are competent to say when common use has definitely swifted, so it just has to be settled in an imperfect process. --Pudeo (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Google Maps uses Kyiv. I actually seriously doubt they could operate in Ukraine if they continued to use Kiev.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Funny, it's Kiev, and Київ below it, for me in Google Maps. I suppose it depends on where your IP is located. --Pudeo (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment to @Pudeo: in my Google Maps it's "Kyiv" above and "Київ" below. I don't know if that system is due to my location here, at least here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Same for me (my location). It also uses Czechia (not Czech Republic) here. Hddty (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment to @Pudeo: in my Google Maps it's "Kyiv" above and "Київ" below. I don't know if that system is due to my location here, at least here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Funny, it's Kiev, and Київ below it, for me in Google Maps. I suppose it depends on where your IP is located. --Pudeo (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Google Maps uses Kyiv. I actually seriously doubt they could operate in Ukraine if they continued to use Kiev.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - not yet, maybe in a few years. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support at this point it’s the common usage in most style guides and is only gaining more traction. I think this satisfies the intent of COMMONNAME. Garuda28 (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support – the majority of respected English-language sources now use the Ukrainian transliteration rather than the Russian transliteration. As we are an encyclopedia and obliged to follow their lead, and because we generally respect the right of people and groups to choose how they want to be identified, it's time for us to make this change too. – bradv🍁 18:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Support The use of CommonName to oppose is risible; Kyiv is clearly now the common name used by major reliable sources, even if regular people and bots creating whatever Google search returns haven't gotten the message yet: "it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals." Reywas92Talk 19:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Russian is a common language in the city, so lets keep the Russian transliteration per TITLEVAR. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- A couple of people have raised the point now. To be clear: Kiev is not a Russian transliteration. People using Kiev are not starting from Киев and working from there. Rather, Kiev entered the English language as the standard English name for the city a few centuries ago in the same way that Vienna, Warsaw and Moscow did. This is a question about English, not a question about Russian or Ukrainian. Kahastok talk 20:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- According to Kiev § Name, it entered English while Kyiv was part of the Russian Empire, and
corresponds to Russian orthography and pronunciation
. Perhaps it's an oversimplification, but the fact remains that there is a Russian-inspired name and a Ukrainian-inspired name, and we are presently using the Russian one. – bradv🍁 20:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- According to Kiev § Name, it entered English while Kyiv was part of the Russian Empire, and
- A couple of people have raised the point now. To be clear: Kiev is not a Russian transliteration. People using Kiev are not starting from Киев and working from there. Rather, Kiev entered the English language as the standard English name for the city a few centuries ago in the same way that Vienna, Warsaw and Moscow did. This is a question about English, not a question about Russian or Ukrainian. Kahastok talk 20:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- And we call Vienna by an Italian-inspired name and Cologne by a French-inspired name. No matter, both are now English. I assume there is no movement to remove other English terms derived from Russian from this article and replace them with terms derived from Ukrainian. The fact that the word Kiev derives from Russian is not a reason to replace it or not to replace it.
- Now, to be clear, I don't see that that invalidates the substance of your argument, that Kyiv is now the more common form in English. I think it probably does invalidate Ludost Mlačani's argument. Which may sound an odd thing to say given my vote back in July but there you are. Kahastok talk 21:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- "Russian is a common language there so lets use the Russian spelling" makes no sense, even if it were true. The local language is Ukrainian, and "Kyiv" is the local spelling using the Latin alphabet, and has been for 25+ years. If we want to follow local practice, it's "Kyiv". Lev!vich 20:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Look at articles Ukraine and Kiev, Russian is commonly used. And Russian uses transliteration Kiev in English, look at Russia Today for instance. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- We don't even use the Russian transliteration of "Moscow" (which is "Moskva"), why would we use the Russian transliteration of Kyiv? Lev!vich 20:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Because we do not have a proper English name for this city, just two transliterations. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- I see, so we have no proper English name for the capital city of Ukraine, just two transliterations: one transliteration is Ukrainian, the other is not Ukrainian. Which one should we use? 🤔 Lev!vich 21:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- I would say Russian, according to the policy WP:PLACE: "one solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive." We do the same for the places in South Tyrol, we use German names. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- The linguistic majority in Ukraine speak Ukrainian and spell it "Kyiv" in English. "Kyiv" is the spelling used in the city and in the country since it officially changed in the 1990s. There is no reason to use the spelling of a linguistic minority. Lev!vich 21:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ukraine#Language: "with Russian being more common in Kiev", Kiev#Demographics: According to a 2006 survey, Ukrainian is used at home by 23% of Kievans, 52% use Russian. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'll point out the obvious issue, although by no means the largest hole in this argument:
2006 survey
. Unfortunately, last census was in 2001, so I doubt further reliable info will be found on this point until 2021, the next census. Regardless, if you're trying to make a TITLEVAR argument (note the guideline saysa topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation
) implying that the "strong ties" relationship of Kiev/Kyiv to the city and Ukraine mandates us to use the Russian transliteration, while Ukraine is lobbying for usage of "Kyiv" and finds the Russian transliteration offensive... well, that's a strong [dubious – discuss]. It logically follows that no clear TITLEVAR argument can be made here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)- Even if ve ignore the TITLEVAR, there is still WP:PLACE argument to "adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive". Is English usage indeciseve? Obviosly. Is lingustic majority in the city Russian? Yes. So, it is all clear. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the section begins with
There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages
which doesn't apply here, but I get your point. Your argument would be for the closer to weigh. I would only say two things. First, If you cite WP:PLACE you must accept the guideline entirely, and it gives criteria for determining commonname (WP:WIAN), and that criteria gives us an unambiguous answer. Second, we can't determine current linguistic majority, because the last official survey was 2001 (nb: 2021 census is indefinitely delayed). Some recent, informal estimates show that to have changed, but obviously such aren't reliable to draw any conclusions from either. And really, that section is last-ditch advice when all else fails. It's not clear that such is the case here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well, the section begins with
- Even if ve ignore the TITLEVAR, there is still WP:PLACE argument to "adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive". Is English usage indeciseve? Obviosly. Is lingustic majority in the city Russian? Yes. So, it is all clear. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'll point out the obvious issue, although by no means the largest hole in this argument:
- Ukraine#Language: "with Russian being more common in Kiev", Kiev#Demographics: According to a 2006 survey, Ukrainian is used at home by 23% of Kievans, 52% use Russian. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- The linguistic majority in Ukraine speak Ukrainian and spell it "Kyiv" in English. "Kyiv" is the spelling used in the city and in the country since it officially changed in the 1990s. There is no reason to use the spelling of a linguistic minority. Lev!vich 21:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- I would say Russian, according to the policy WP:PLACE: "one solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive." We do the same for the places in South Tyrol, we use German names. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- I see, so we have no proper English name for the capital city of Ukraine, just two transliterations: one transliteration is Ukrainian, the other is not Ukrainian. Which one should we use? 🤔 Lev!vich 21:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Because we do not have a proper English name for this city, just two transliterations. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- We don't even use the Russian transliteration of "Moscow" (which is "Moskva"), why would we use the Russian transliteration of Kyiv? Lev!vich 20:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Look at articles Ukraine and Kiev, Russian is commonly used. And Russian uses transliteration Kiev in English, look at Russia Today for instance. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- "Russian is a common language there so lets use the Russian spelling" makes no sense, even if it were true. The local language is Ukrainian, and "Kyiv" is the local spelling using the Latin alphabet, and has been for 25+ years. If we want to follow local practice, it's "Kyiv". Lev!vich 20:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Google n-grams shows Kiev is still the dominant term.[33]
Google Scholar also shows an overwhelming preference for Kiev over Kiyv.— BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks @Levivich:. I've struck the portion of my comment relating to Google Scholar, although I still oppose a move based on the N-grams results. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- There is a trend away from Kiev and towards Kyiv. In a few years, I suspect Kyiv will be overwhelmingly dominant in scholarly sources. But Wikipedia is not a crystall ball, so we should rush from extropolating trends into moving pages. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 04:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks @Levivich:. I've struck the portion of my comment relating to Google Scholar, although I still oppose a move based on the N-grams results. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose While I, too, have great dislike for Moscow's expansionist policies, I do not think the COMMONNAME argument has been met to merit a change. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Chris troutman:, can you please move your comment to "Survey (september)" section - editors have been asked to add their comments in chronological order. Thanks. (you can either delete my comment when you move yours, or move mine with yours, thanks)--73.75.115.5 (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Survey (September)
If you !voted above, then there is no need to !vote again below. Feel free to respond to other editors, but please do not !vote twice in this move request. |
- Oppose We should use the common English-language name for the city, not a transliteration from a foreign language. The English language word is "Kiev". Levivich says that we do not use the Russian transliteration of "Moscow" (which is "Moskva") - the reason for this is that for hundreds of years we have had an English word "Moscow". But the same argument applies here: for hundreds of years we have had an English word "Kiev", whereas "Kyiv" is a transliteration from the language spoken by the Ukrainian government. Please do not abandon English-language words in favour of a politically-motivated gestures.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- The difference here is that Russia does not push for calling Moscow "Moskva" in English. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- That makes zero difference at Wikipedia. What Russia wants, what Ukraine wants, what Brazil wants, what Tibet wants... It could be Kyiv or Kiev, but what another country wants others to use has no bearing on what term is used in English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. If Wikipedia policy was to allow government edicts or political campaigns to dictate editorial decisions, many of our articles would look very different. Kahastok talk 21:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- That makes zero difference at Wikipedia. What Russia wants, what Ukraine wants, what Brazil wants, what Tibet wants... It could be Kyiv or Kiev, but what another country wants others to use has no bearing on what term is used in English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- The difference here is that Russia does not push for calling Moscow "Moskva" in English. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. The first two sentences of Kiev#Name seem to summarise the current situation well, and based on that I would not support a move. I think Wikipedia should follow the convention rather than participate in setting a trend, and in this case I'm not convinced that a new convention has been established. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Kiev is still the common English-language name for the city.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Pawnkingthree, where is the evidence for this claim. Here is evidence that Kyiv is the English-language COMMONNAME. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Per the compelling changing consensus in reliable sources' style guides/WP:NAMECHANGES. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom and I think that name "Kyiv" is more similar to the original historical name, which is quality basis in this case. Mikola22 (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not again. Nothing has changed. Kiev is still the overwhelming common name in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wrt what's changed, see e.g. Columbia Journalism Review, "Why Kiev is now Kyiv", Dec. 16, 2019 (after the last RM):
Recently, the Associated Press and the New York Times changed the capital of Ukraine from "Kiev" to "Kyiv." How dare they? Perhaps the better question to ask is, "What took them so long?"
Lev!vich 17:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC) - Necrothesp, where is the evidence for this claim that Kiev is
common name in English-language sources
. Here is evidence that Kyiv is the English-language COMMONNAME. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wrt what's changed, see e.g. Columbia Journalism Review, "Why Kiev is now Kyiv", Dec. 16, 2019 (after the last RM):
- Support. Basically every major English news source already uses "Kyiv". Only a small minority were citing WP:COMMONNAME as an argument against change when we moved North Macedonia. Why should this be any different? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- On the direct question, why should it be different to North Macedonia. The answer is, because they are completely different situations, with very little in common.
- The reason only a small minority - if any - were claiming WP:COMMONNAME at the North Macedonia RM is because Republic of Macedonia had never been the common name for that country. The common name was plain Macedonia, but we couldn't use Macedonia because it was ambiguous. After the name change had become official, sources had rapidly switched to North Macedonia and per WP:NAMECHANGES we gave greater weight to those sources written after the change.
- Those factors do not apply here. While we may all disagree on the common name today, Kiev was certainly the common name until relatively recently. North Macedonia is clearly English, whereas Kyiv is explicitly a transliteration from Ukrainian. And while North Macedonia was a new change, this is a change from the mid-nineties that few English-language sources adopted until very recently. Kahastok talk 16:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Weak support per WP:COMMONNAME. The arguments and links provided by Levivich and others during the discussion are convincing. But this is still a borderline renaming and still Kievan Rus. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose This is the English language Wikipedia, not the Ukrainian one. The OED has an entry for Kiev but not Kyiv. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson, Kyiv is the common English language name of the city as evidenced here --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Kiev is the most common English language name of the city as evidenced here. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- That only goes up to 2019. We will probably not get another ngram update for another 5 years. The last ngram was only went up to 2008. You have also not accounted for other occurrences. It was much closer than that and growing exponentially. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment on errors with Ngrams. One of the problems of the Google Books Ngram facility is that it is easy to make mistakes with it.
The above editor suggested this Ngram, but for 2019: this gives 3,161 for kiev excluding chicken kiev and dynamo kiev, and 2,263 for kyiv excluding dynamo kyiv. It also gives an error message: "Case-insensitive searches and compositions cannot be combined. Ignoring case-insensitive option."
You therefore need to get the capitalisation right, as here; for 2019 this gives: 1,813,261 for Kiev excluding Chicken Kiev and Dynamo Kiev, and 839,062 for Kyiv excluding Chicken Kyiv and Dynamo Kyiv. It is also worth experimenting with the buttons for English/American English/British English, and for the smoothing levels (0 appears to be no smoothing, 3 is default smoothing).
When you do combinations, you get a case sensitive search. Hence the error message mentioned above. But the 2019 default-smoothed frequencies of capitalised Kiev/Kyiv (1,257,970 and 532,131) are much greater than for Chicken Kiev/Kyiv (7,227 and 116) and Dynamo Kiev/Kyiv (4,097 and 2,617). So the error in just comparing Kiev and Kyiv in a case sensitive ngram is tiny as long as you get the capitalisation right.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment on errors with Ngrams. One of the problems of the Google Books Ngram facility is that it is easy to make mistakes with it.
- That only goes up to 2019. We will probably not get another ngram update for another 5 years. The last ngram was only went up to 2008. You have also not accounted for other occurrences. It was much closer than that and growing exponentially. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Kiev is the most common English language name of the city as evidenced here. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know how old your OED is, but OED 3rd ed. (2010) has an entry for "Kyiv". It's on page 981. (They also have "Kiev" on page 966.) [35] Lev!vich 03:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson, Kyiv is the common English language name of the city as evidenced here --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I use the online edition which is more up-to-date. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- OED online was last updated in 2015 and has an entry for both "Kiev" and "Kyiv" just like the 2010 print edition. Lev!vich 14:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment to @Andrew Davidson: WP:USEENGLISH is not compulsory on enwiki, as evidenced by my successful move attempt for Libingan ng mga Bayani in our country (pls. see Talk:Libingan ng mga Bayani#Requested move 25 July 2020 for the proof). And wait, this issue is about names of places and not on names of landmarks or institutions, so what should prevail is the WP:COMMONNAME based on most reliable sources, and not just the English-only policy and also the use of the frequently-misused Google ngrams. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- When I access Kiev in the online OED, it says that "This entry has been updated (OED Third Edition, December 2019)" so I suppose Levivich is accessing some other version. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your !vote is based on the singular but very false reason "The OED has an entry for Kiev but not Kyiv". In fact, the OED has an entry for "Kyiv", and has had one for years. Both the online and the print version. The original OED and the AmEng and CanEng versions. It all has an entry for "Kyiv". I've already pointed to you the page in the books. You're just not being truthful when you claim that "OED has an entry for Kiev but not Kyiv". Type in "Kyiv" in the search bar, and something comes up, doesn't it? What exactly comes up depends on the version, but the entry is there in all versions since at least 2010. Lev!vich 23:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- The OED does not include entries for proper names and place names, as such. Its entry for Kiev is only for the name used to form compounds, and all three definitions pertain to chicken Kyiv (Yes, the 2019 update adds “now also Kyiv”). But this is not an entry about how the city’s name is spelled at all. Is this not completely obvious?! Please don’t pretend it is or intends to be an authority on the proper noun’s spelling and usage. —Michael Z. 02:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your !vote is based on the singular but very false reason "The OED has an entry for Kiev but not Kyiv". In fact, the OED has an entry for "Kyiv", and has had one for years. Both the online and the print version. The original OED and the AmEng and CanEng versions. It all has an entry for "Kyiv". I've already pointed to you the page in the books. You're just not being truthful when you claim that "OED has an entry for Kiev but not Kyiv". Type in "Kyiv" in the search bar, and something comes up, doesn't it? What exactly comes up depends on the version, but the entry is there in all versions since at least 2010. Lev!vich 23:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- When I access Kiev in the online OED, it says that "This entry has been updated (OED Third Edition, December 2019)" so I suppose Levivich is accessing some other version. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support So many official bodies and institutions have changed. Major manuals of style have changed, which are a good guide to reliable source usage. The (legitimate) government wants the change. The arguments over whether this is merely a transliteration from Ukrainian don't hold water, nor how many Russian speakers there are in Kyiv: these changes are taking place in English. The cause of the change is certainly political (Ukrainian independence/self-determination), but that's neither here nor there in terms of how many organisations and institutions are now following the change. ADD: I see some have suggested this is a case of people trying to "Right Great Wrongs" ie push WP to take a lead. I think that puts the cart before the horse. The change in the real world can reasonably be cast as "righting a great wrong" for those who have wanted the change. That doesn't make their success in persuading major institutions to change out of order in terms of Wikipedia policy. OsFish (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support have opposed in the past every time this RM has come up. Was sceptical about the BBC switch to Kyiv in October last year. But you know almost a year after the BBC switched, the sky hasn't fallen in, and it's now at the point where "Kiev" is beginning to sound a little like "Bombay" or "Calcutta". I don't think a single vote above has expressed conviction that the scales aren't eventually going to tip to Kyiv, so we might as well just get on with it. The scales are not going to tip back again. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support The official name has changed, and it appears we've reached the point where Kyiv has attained if not surpassed the usage level of Kiev in reliable sources, given the preponderance of the evidence presented above. The trend is very clearly in favor of Kyiv as well, especially given that many governments, major news organizations, and manuals of style have adopted the Kyiv spelling. What are we waiting for, exactly? CThomas3 (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support We should follow the style guides of reputable, reliable press organizations, not try to cast Google runes. XOR'easter (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. The majority of the reliable sources have recently changed the language they use, and it's right that Wikipedia follows suit.—S Marshall T/C 10:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Technically, we might be slightly early, but worst case there’s zero chance this is not inevitable. Even if actual usage isn’t quite there yet, I call WP:IAR. The wave of change is far enough along for us to follow suit. —-В²C ☎ 15:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support: I came here after seeing a mention at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, expecting to oppose a move, but (a) the move nomination is convincing and (b) I checked my preferred source for current educated UK English usage, the Guardian style guide
("("Kiev not Kiev; but chicken kiev
")Kyiv not Kiev; but chicken kiev
"), and I agree that it's time we changed - just as we have Mumbai rather than Bombay. PamD 17:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wait @PamD:, "Kiev not Kiev; but chicken kiev"? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Well spotted: @JWilz12345: Transcription error! Now amended above. PamD 18:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wait @PamD:, "Kiev not Kiev; but chicken kiev"? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Per Lev!vich. Double sharp (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support: clear trend-line supporting Kyiv over Kiev bolstered by a change of usage in highly reliable sources. Sceptre (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support As others have stated, the accepted transliteration seems to have changed to favor Kyiv in recent years. Acebulf (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:UE – Collins, Oxford, Webster. Cavalryman (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC).
- The fact that these three dictionaries (Collins, OED, and Merriam-Webster) have not yet updated their entries from Kiev to Kyiv is documented at Talk:Kiev/sources#Academic encyclopedias and dictionaries (Kiev). However, there are also dictionaries and encyclopedias that have already updated their entries from Kiev to Kyiv, such as Webster's New World College Dictionary (starting in 2018 with their 5th ed.) and Encyclopedia Britannica starting in Nov. 2019, which is also documented at Talk:Kiev/sources#Academic encyclopedias and dictionaries (Kyiv).--73.75.115.5 (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per detailed nom. We should be consistent with virtually all reputable English-language style guides and WP:RS on this matter. I can't even remember the last time I saw a respectable publication use "Kiev". Armadillopteryx 00:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support per the clear and convincing evidence that Kyiv is the new normal and the WP:COMMONNAME. This was true back at my unfairly shuttered October 2019 nomination and it remains true today. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Numerous reputable style guides now use "Kyiv", and since we follow what reliable sources do, we ought follow suit. I think any arguments that "Kyiv" isn't in wide use are circular reasoning, and would never allow us to change the use of any word. "Kiev" is clearly a Russification of what is a Ukranian word, which seems quite odd. Now Wikipedia is not in the business of righting great wrongs. But we aren't paving the way: it is reliable sources that have decided to right that wrong, and its time to catch up. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support per ProcrastinatingReader and Levivich. It seems clear to me that a majority of reliable sources have switched to using "Kyiv" so we should follow suit. (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
General discussion
- (moved from Survey section by Lev!vich 16:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)) Comment just to point out that, since I'm not seeing any substantial change when compared to the situation in place during the previous iteration of this RM, I'm maintaining my oppose !vote from back then. Google Trends results still show "Kiev" clearly outperforming "Kyiv" in common usage in the last year everywhere (even with a slight upward trend in recent weeks), just as is shown in Ngram (some have pointed out that Ngram only shows results up to 2019; well, this is an argument that is actually against any move right now, since more time would be required to see whether a change in common usage settles in or not. Sustained usage is required for a change to become notable under Wikipedia standards). As I said back in July, while there may be evidence that a change in common usage may happen in the future, sources do not point to this having happened just yet. More so, those even hint at trends on common usage having stabilized again, with "Kiev" still in the lead by a great deal. Remember that Wikipedia doesn't lead; it follows. Some people may be eager to see the article title being changed on the basis of "Kyiv" being more used in sources, but this doesn't mean Wikipedia should act hastily or prematurely just because "Kiev" is (and has been for a long time) the "wrong" version for some people.
- P.S. Note that I'm also aware of the existing list showing a lot of sources in support of "Kyiv"; as far as I have seen, that list was heavily edited by pro-Kyiv editors who even overrode anyone adding any source in favour of "Kiev" (and those that were added have been edited to be presented in such a way that it looks like those also favour "Kyiv"). It should probably be handled with care in terms of reliability and at the risk of those handling it (this said, I just wanted to clarify some points and update them to the re-opened RM; I've no interest in engaging into a lengthy, never-ending discussion, really. Thx). Impru20talk 21:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is so weird. I was just about to copy the above comment to a separate section, but you beat me to it by seconds, it seems. Wild. Anyway, it's probably best that unthreaded comments from those who have already !voted 2 months ago, be added, here, to this section. Just to make life easier for the prospective closer. El_C 22:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion below, as uncomfortable as it may be, was still in response to my comment, so it didn't feel right to deprive it of its context. It's entirely off-topic and mostly resolved (the IP is barred from participating here, and I chose not to revert the move to avoid further conflict), so I thought that a collapse would feel better suited to settle the issue. Let's hope the discussion is now kept on topic. Thanks. Impru20talk 23:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Procedural note on adding RM details
- Question: do we consider it appropriate for the IP to retrospectively change the RM request text, as was done this morning? Kahastok talk 08:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely not! It's one thing to link something that may not have been linked before, it's quite another to add more text as has been done. If one or two had responded and it had been tweaked that's one thing, but there have been heaps and heaps of responses, a delay, and heavy discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- In fact, editing own comments after these have received replies is strongly discouraged as per WP:TALK#REPLIED, because it may misrepresent others' replies as it deprives them of their original context. Impru20talk 13:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Kahastok, RE your question: all I added to the RM (diff) was to A) bring the link to details around ban/moratorium on changing the name of the article from Oct 2019 to June 2020 (back in July there was no need for explicitly providing links to those ban/moratorium discussion in the RM because they used to be part of Talk:Kiev/naming/old discussion list (which is permanently listed on top of this Talk:Kiev page), but on Aug 13, 2020 those Ban/Moratorium details were hidden/removed (diff) and B) added a link to Talk:Kiev/sources that summarize the same points as described in the RM, but more exhaustively and with better formatting.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- None of that is accepted practice for editing your own comments. Not when it's two months later. These points were not part of your original text and you are not allowed to pretend that they were.
- @Kahastok, RE your question: all I added to the RM (diff) was to A) bring the link to details around ban/moratorium on changing the name of the article from Oct 2019 to June 2020 (back in July there was no need for explicitly providing links to those ban/moratorium discussion in the RM because they used to be part of Talk:Kiev/naming/old discussion list (which is permanently listed on top of this Talk:Kiev page), but on Aug 13, 2020 those Ban/Moratorium details were hidden/removed (diff) and B) added a link to Talk:Kiev/sources that summarize the same points as described in the RM, but more exhaustively and with better formatting.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- In fact, editing own comments after these have received replies is strongly discouraged as per WP:TALK#REPLIED, because it may misrepresent others' replies as it deprives them of their original context. Impru20talk 13:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- If you wish to add new information, you need to be transparent about it. That means, you need to revert back to your original text, and, if you wish to make extra points, you need to make them in a separate post with a new signature. And if you decline to revert the new text, you may find others reverting it for you. Kahastok talk 16:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds good Kahastok, this shall be done now--73.75.115.5 (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- If you wish to add new information, you need to be transparent about it. That means, you need to revert back to your original text, and, if you wish to make extra points, you need to make them in a separate post with a new signature. And if you decline to revert the new text, you may find others reverting it for you. Kahastok talk 16:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Procedural note on clerking
I thought it'd be useful to explain this. I've gone through clerking some of the canvassing concerns.
I've applied for {{spa}} for editors with few edits prior to the first edit to this page.
Some editors had substantial editing histories here, but had become dormant by 1 July and suddenly appeared that day to vote here. The literal phrase "has made few or no other edits outside this topic" seems somewhat misleading in these cases. I have used {{canvassed}} for these, because it is more accurate in implication. I have also used {{canvassed}} in one case where the editor was not dormant but where we have strong evidence that they were canvassed.
Some editors have become more active since their first contribution here, but were dormant at the time they first posted here. I have based the clerking on the position when they first posted here. Kahastok talk 21:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Kahastok. Your work and explanation are appreciated. El_C 07:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Kahastok, I would also suggest adding the {{spa}} tag to User:73.75.115.5 since they have virtually no edits in their history outside this one single issue. That's the very definition of a single purpose account.--TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)- User:TaivoLinguist not sure what other clerking activities you are asking of Kahastok - they already tagged my account with {{spa}} (diff) when they did their original clerking of this thread on Aug 28.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, missed the fine print. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- User:TaivoLinguist not sure what other clerking activities you are asking of Kahastok - they already tagged my account with {{spa}} (diff) when they did their original clerking of this thread on Aug 28.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Let me join El C in thank you Kahastok. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Kahastok, a !vote by Mzajac has been accidentally hidden. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am reluctant to do any more than the basic level of clerking that I've already done because I am involved in the substantive discussion.
- Kahastok, a !vote by Mzajac has been accidentally hidden. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- If it's the comment I think you're referring to, I had forgotten it was there, but please see this comment from User:El_C, which demonstrates to me that it was actually deliberately hidden back in July. Since we've now both pinged Mzajac I'm sure he'll be happy to make his views clear if he does not think that they are already clear. Kahastok talk 17:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Kahastok: Given that you have taken the clerking duties for this discussion, I join Coffeeandcrumbs in asking you to please refactor (i.e., unhide and move it as the last comment in the July discussion, because Mzajac clearly stated that this was intended as a last vote in that discussion and the only reason it did not appear there was an edit conflict between Mzajac and El_C that happened when El_C suspended discussion on July 2) Mzajac's vote (diff). In his original collapsing of Mzajac's vote User:El_C explicitly said that when voting resumes Mzajac's vote should be unhidden.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- If it's the comment I think you're referring to, I had forgotten it was there, but please see this comment from User:El_C, which demonstrates to me that it was actually deliberately hidden back in July. Since we've now both pinged Mzajac I'm sure he'll be happy to make his views clear if he does not think that they are already clear. Kahastok talk 17:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- That's not what El_C actually said though, is it? El_C told Mzajac,
When the RM discussion resumes, you may refactor
.
- That's not what El_C actually said though, is it? El_C told Mzajac,
- There is (unsurprisingly) nothing there that invites random involved editors to mess about with Mzajac's comment. Kahastok talk 08:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Kahastok: I think you are reading too much into the verbiage that El_C used, in other words when El_C said
When the RM discussion resumes, you may refactor
, he did not mean "you" as in Mzajac himself, but more as any editor involved in this discussion. Consequently, Kahastok I re-iterate the ask from Coffeeandcrumbs and me to unhide Mzajac's vote.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)- Without an explicit comment on the matter from User:El_C, then the plain meaning of "you" as second person singular referring to User:Mzajac must be used. It is you, anon IP, who are reading too much into El_C's comment when you try to apply a second person pronoun in the context of a single editor to mean "anyone". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Kahastok: I think you are reading too much into the verbiage that El_C used, in other words when El_C said
- Just to be absolutely clear on this point. It is obvious to me that "you" in this context means Mzajac. Not, anyone who feels like it. I have looked several times, and I cannot reconcile this comment as implying that any editor can move the comment if they feel like it.
- It is Mzajac who gets to decide what Mzajac says in this discussion. Not me, not a random IP.
- As such I regard this as a disruptive breach of WP:TPG. I feel it is also worth noting at this stage that User:Barkeep49 unblocked you on the basis on the basis "that there will be no disruptive editing from me on Talk:Kiev". Kahastok talk 18:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi User:Kahastok, when user:TaivoLinguist removed my clerking of Mzajac's vote diff, they also removed the comment I did when doing that clerking that, quote,
Kahastok, since you have not done clerking duties to unhide User:Mzajac's vote, I have taken it upon myself to do those clerking duties. As I said above, I think you are reading too much into El_C's verbiage, and what he meant was that any editor can uncollapse and move Mzajac's vote, once RM is unsuspended.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
. Also, Kahastok, I strongly refute your accusation of a breach of WP:TPG by me for merely doing clerking duties on this talk page diff - I have asked for an opinion about my clerking from sysop Mzajac (diff), so let's wait for his reply on this.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi User:Kahastok, when user:TaivoLinguist removed my clerking of Mzajac's vote diff, they also removed the comment I did when doing that clerking that, quote,
- Please explain what part of WP:TALKO allows you to overrule Mzajac on the question of where his comment goes on this page. Kahastok talk 19:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:Kahastok when User:Mzajac made their voting comment they were very explicit in saying that it was intended to be included in the Survey section (and not anywhere else), and the only reason that this voting comment did not get added to the Survey section, was because of, quote
edit conflict that [User:El_C] caused when they shut down the requested move
(diff). I reiterate thatI strongly refute your accusation of a breach of WP:TPG by me for merely doing clerking duties on this talk page
--73.75.115.5 (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)- Anon IP, it doesn't matter one hill of beans what you think User:Mzajac intended or even what they explicitly wrote. User:El_C gave Mzajac the right to reformat their comment by saying "you can reformat it". El_C did not give you or any other editor that permission. If Mzajac thinks it's important to move the comment (we don't "vote" in Wikipedia), then they will. But you don't have that privilege. We have explained this to you multiple times and there should be no confusion on your part that this edit by you is, indeed, disruptive and controversial, despite what you wrote here about being confused. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:TaivoLinguist WP:Wikipeida is not experiment in law, and we should not try and limit productive editing/discussions on Wikipedia, because we have some specific interpretation of an enwiki guideline (or in this case a sysop's comment regarding condition to uncollapse another user's vote). I said previously that when sysop El_C said "
When the RM discussion resumes, you may refactor
", by "you" they clearly meant any editor who will be doing clerking upon unsuspention of this discussion.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)- And Wikipedia is not an experiment in reading someone else's mind or warping English grammar to say what you want it to say. El_C's comment is clear and completely unambiguous when he used "you" in reference to the person he was speaking to--Mzajac. "You", anon IP, are the only editor who is trying to twist El_C's words to make them mean what you want them to mean. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- @TaivoLinguist, Mzajac just responded (diff) on their talk page they will
will add a separate vote under the RM soon
; hopefully, when they do that they will also clarify whether they consider my clerking of their their July 2 vote diff a violation of WP:TPG (as has been unjustly implied by some editors here).--73.75.115.5 (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)- Whether or not you get a pat on the head for your disruption here is immaterial. The point, carefully described to you by several editors, that you have willfully ignored has always been that it was User:Mzajac's choice and not yours. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have commented about this at my user talk but I am of the firm, uninvolved administrator, opinion that no one except Mzajac should be messing with their participation here. The uncollapsing shouldn't have happened. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- @TaivoLinguist, Mzajac just responded (diff) on their talk page they will
- And Wikipedia is not an experiment in reading someone else's mind or warping English grammar to say what you want it to say. El_C's comment is clear and completely unambiguous when he used "you" in reference to the person he was speaking to--Mzajac. "You", anon IP, are the only editor who is trying to twist El_C's words to make them mean what you want them to mean. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:TaivoLinguist WP:Wikipeida is not experiment in law, and we should not try and limit productive editing/discussions on Wikipedia, because we have some specific interpretation of an enwiki guideline (or in this case a sysop's comment regarding condition to uncollapse another user's vote). I said previously that when sysop El_C said "
- Anon IP, it doesn't matter one hill of beans what you think User:Mzajac intended or even what they explicitly wrote. User:El_C gave Mzajac the right to reformat their comment by saying "you can reformat it". El_C did not give you or any other editor that permission. If Mzajac thinks it's important to move the comment (we don't "vote" in Wikipedia), then they will. But you don't have that privilege. We have explained this to you multiple times and there should be no confusion on your part that this edit by you is, indeed, disruptive and controversial, despite what you wrote here about being confused. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:Kahastok when User:Mzajac made their voting comment they were very explicit in saying that it was intended to be included in the Survey section (and not anywhere else), and the only reason that this voting comment did not get added to the Survey section, was because of, quote
Discussion around Suspended Requested move 1 July 2020
Prior discussion
| |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cassette tapeFyunck(click) Can you read? You can call it whatever you like, a "plastic thingy with reels", I don't care. But I hate when illiterate WP:COMMONNAME takes over proper technical or official name as an article title, this is idiotic. Wikipedia has redirects, so you can have a redirect from "plastic thingy with reels" to Compact Cassette. Likewise, you can have redirect from Kiev to Kyiv, and it is still searchable. For lay people Wikipedia became the source of information, not an aggregator, and thus it encourages incorrect word usage, skewing the statistics that everyone likes to appeal to when bringing up WP:COMMONNAME argument. Sick. Mikus (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, the proper "technical or official name" of the city as per the Ukrainian Constitution would be "City of Kyiv", not just "Kyiv". I am not sure if this debate is really warranted. Impru20talk 20:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Two more years of lockdownCripes. Of course there are regular move requests, because this page should be moved. That's an indicator of WP:CONSENSUS. But now moves and free discussion of them are being banned with the justification that there are a lot of them. What are they going to do next, hold a Victory Day parade and a popular referendum? For reference, here’s what an argument for the move might look like:
—Michael Z. 2020-07-02 15:20 z
There has been 13 failed move requests. At some point these become disruptive and a timesink, so some throttling is due. El_C 15:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The RM above was made completely untenable by the off-wiki canvassing and I would certainly endorse its closure. The reason for the last moratorium was that this was coming up over and over and dominating the talk page. The consensus was consistently against moving but nothing else could get done. And it had reached the stage where the requests were so repetitious that new analysis of the evidence wasn't happening - ironically, making consensus for the move much less likely. Part of the aim of the moratorium was to give some time so that editors were looking at the issues with fresh eyes. Also, we should ask Arbcom to desysop the admin who thought it was a good idea to canvass this off-wiki, which was a gross breach of trust. Given the nature of the evidence, this may have to be handled by email. Kahastok talk 16:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Nonsense. Discussion shut down after two days? Discussion shut down for two years? Shame. Shame. Shame shame shame. Cui bono? Who's afraid of possible (! just possible !) change? Week long discussion every 6 months - so what?! Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I do think it’s very troublesome that as soon as the discussion was leaning towards Kyiv, there was a sudden intervention by a certain person who has quotes of Russian dictator Lenin, who presided over the Ukrainian-Soviet war, to halt renaming the title of this article from the antiquated Russian name to the modern name in English and Ukrainian. In addition, I would suggest that moves to restrict the people who can participate in decision-making and consensus building is a form of gerrymandering, intentional or unintentional. The move to take decision making away from regular editors and viewers and into the hands of an elitist clique is extremely concerning. Tāwhiwhi (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC) — Tāwhiwhi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
A modest proposalSince this RM was procedurally closed 36 hours after opening because it was "fatally compromised" due to off-Wiki canvassing and other potentially compromising irregularities, some specific directives, tailored exclusively for this subject matter may be in order. If discussions regarding the main title header for Wikipedia's article delineating the capital of Ukraine are considered to be such a "timesink" and so "disruptive" to the proper functioning of Wikipedia that they must be put into lockdown for two years, then this is obviously a special case which calls for special procedures. The key aspect of the lockdown/moratorium is that the denial of the right to discuss this matter and then to vote upon it is unfair to "true" Wikipedians, the ones who show up every day to contribute. Thus, the "modest proposal" is to make off-wiki canvassing irrelevant by limiting participation to those "true Wikipedians" whom we all know, the usual suspects. While it goes against the grain of Wikipedia's standard practice, it will at least allow a poll regarding the mindset of "true Wikipedians" regarding this longterm controversy. This RM, most likely with the same or slightly updated text, should be reopened by a "true Wikipedian", seconded by another "true Wikipedian" and should be allowed to run until there are no more comments for three, four or five days. The specifics of this proposal will obviously needs to be fine-tuned, primarily who qualifies as a "true Wikipedian" eligible to participate and vote in this "exclusive" RM and whether such a vote would count as establishing a WP:CONSENSUS. The centerpiece of the "modest proposal" would be to make participation so difficult that only a small number of "true Wikipedians" would be able to participate and then relieve the stringency as needed. Thus, start with a five-year minimum participation, a minimum of 30 edits per month for every single month of those five years and, as method of excluding single purpose accounts and "sleeper cells", any edits to articles or talk pages relating to Ukraine, Kyiv/Kiev or Russia should represent no more than 10 percent of each month's total edits. Those admittedly stringent preconditions may be loosened upon consensus. Finally, I realize full well that it goes against the spirit and principles of Wikipedia to create a special class of "true Wikipedians" or "senior Wikipedians" who would hold special privileges not available to other Wikipedians. However, this "special senior participation" would enable longterm Wikipedians an opportunity to express their views and cast their votes while keeping out special interest groups. The alternative is to lock in place for two years a state of affairs which is unsupported by all current WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, governmental institutions, geographical resources and media outlets. Let us discuss the matter. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs and TaivoLinguist, due to complaints regarding participation of newly-minted single-purpose accounts, the reasoning behind "a modest proposal" was to start with restrictions so onerous that few Wikipedians would be eligible to participate and then scale those restrictions downward. Of course, in practical terms, depending upon consensus, only one year and 5000 edits should be sufficient for participation or even 6 months and 2500 edits, all other aspects having been satisfied. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC) User:El_C would you consider bypassing reopening this RM, even with strict participation guidelines, and moving straight to Arbitration? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
COMMONNAME source analysisTo assist for the next requested move, please contribute to Talk:Kiev/sources. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
And people were worried that they'd have to wait two years! The new RM has started, officially or not. The new moratorium lasted barely 12 hours.
(Which, for anyone interested, is precisely why we this sort of exercise was disallowed in the previous moratorium.) Kahastok talk 19:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Levivich, if ArbCom takes up this issue and makes a decision it will most certainly "be decided". ArbCom is the final authority and your insistence that "consensus will prevail" is false. Indeed, "Consensus" is not a vote despite your attempts to make it so. But ArbCom will prevail if they take up this issue as we are asking. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
ClarificationAccording to the sequence of events (that has been hopelessly mangled in the discussion) here is the sequence of upcoming events as I understand User:El_C has stated. He is the one in charge here right now.
--TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
FTR, I would point out that we are not just discussing 13 RMs in the lifetime of the page. The last moratorium came in directly after the October 2019 RM. At that time I worked out that that RM (26 October 2019) was the eleventh separate discussion on the article name started since the closure of the previous RM just over three months beforehand (16 July 2019). Many of those discussions lasted several days, and while most were started by new editors they tended to end up with the same editors making the same arguments over and over again. The whole point behind the moratorium was that this continuous discussion of the article name had long since driven out all useful discussion, and was thus disrupting the article. There is no doubt that allowing such discussion to continue through any future moratorium would be equally disruptive. Kahastok talk 16:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Seeking confirmation of the Arbitration Committee having been made aware of this disputeCan we please get an update from someone about having contacted the Arbitration Committee regarding this matter? You don't need to divulge anything, just confirm that this communication with the Committee has began. El_C 03:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
|
Arbitrary break
So, El_C are you waiting for the clerking? I don’t know what that means, so if you’ll explain what you expect, maybe I and some others can get started on it, since you were ready to reopen the move nearly two weeks ago. Thanks. —Michael Z. 14:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Clerking is easy and can be done in minutes. I'm surprised no one has done it yet. I gave permission to edit the archived (suspended) discussion for anyone to do so at any time. But, no, it has nothing to do with that. I'm awaiting further notice from the Arbitration Committee about how to proceed. El_C 19:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Our understanding was that the previous RM was suspended pending the result of the ArbCom action and then you would proceed to follow the instructions of the ArbCom decision--either cancelling the previous RM and starting a new one or reopening the old one. But for now we're just waiting. That's actually precisely what you wrote when you closed the RM: "These proceedings are suspended pending their [ArbCom's] decision" --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- El_C, I am willing to start clerking by tagging all new or inactive accounts in the RM discussion above. I don’t know what constitutes “new” or “inactive,” or what exactly “tagging accounts” is, but I will look for relevant guidelines and improvise if I have to.
- I’m confused, though, whether you’re “ready to reopen” or waiting for ArbCom on “a private matter” or something. There’s a lot of alluding to some non-transparent, non-consensus process by I don’t know who, and some in-joke about “beans” which I don’t get. I’d like to be informed what is going on, in plain English. Or should I just ignore all these games and whispers and propose the move again, according to Wikipedia’s plain and open guidelines, and seek consensus? Thanks.
- TaivoLinguist, speak for yourself, because we do not all share your understanding. —Michael Z. 03:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- User:Mzajac, if there were not a general understanding that everything was on pause based on User:El_C's statements, then there would have been a general and constant clamoring on this page to restart instead of nearly total silence for the last two weeks. My apologies if you don't want to be included in that understanding. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Michael, the link is WP:BEANS. The tag is {{spa}}. El_C 12:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, I read Beans but I’m too slow to understand what it has to do with this. I wish someone would explain in plain language, instead of nudges and winks. —Michael Z. 14:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not be circular, but it would be contrary to BEANS to answer that. El_C 14:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, I read Beans but I’m too slow to understand what it has to do with this. I wish someone would explain in plain language, instead of nudges and winks. —Michael Z. 14:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- User:Mzajac, in the dark of night I misunderstood what you meant by "clerking". I was understanding "opening the discussion back up", but based on User:El_C's response you don't seem to have meant that. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- You did not misunderstand:
Or should I just ignore all these games and whispers and propose the move again, according to Wikipedia’s plain and open guidelines, and seek consensus?
No, Michael, you should definitely not do that. El_C 12:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)- El C, on a slightly tangential note, apparently there is past precedent for using discretionary sanctions to regulate how a discussion is conducted (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms, I believe that format/rules was taken under DS, not a specific case remedy, per the Rules section there). Assuming ArbCom takes no interest in this matter, perhaps there's that option if you decide to reopen the RM. A decent set of rules might lead to a more productive discussion on this perennial, controversial question. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- That feels like a bit of a rule creep, ProcrastinatingReader. I'm taking discretionary action and noting it in the log —like with Talk:Ayurveda#RFC:_pseudoscience_in_the_opening_sentence, for example— subject to Committee review. That suffices, in my mind. Anyway, I got a sense (from this) that Barkeep49 is going to take the lead now, which I welcome with enthusiasm. El_C 17:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have no desire to take responsibility for this. I have a willingness to help as part of a team effort. I also have a belief that the conversation should happen. So far I have not been able to reconcile these three things. If the original discussion had been allowed to proceed I would have been active in monitoring. When El C closed it down he took on the responsibility for this. I don't know how to restart the discussion without also taking responsibility for it. So while I have given thought to how we might want to resume this conversation I have been shy about actually making it happen because I don't think this is a topic well served by one person leading/taking responsibility. Also not helping is that my onwiki time has been very limited (today's the first day in a while where I've really been able to be on). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I'm open to suggestions on how to immediately proceed. If I need to be the one to unsuspend the discussion, so be it.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 17:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Upon further thought, I just went ahead and unsuspended the discussion. Will note on the log. Thanks for everyone's patience. El_C 17:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I'm open to suggestions on how to immediately proceed. If I need to be the one to unsuspend the discussion, so be it.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 17:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps; I just wanted to float the idea. imo a structured discussion that allows people to reach a consensus in either direction, even if it involves invoking DS to facilitate civil & productive discourse, seems better imo than a undecipherable mess (though I suppose you could say it's unnecessary, after all even the Fox News RfC went without a hitch, mostly), though it'd probably be a great help for the unfortunate fellow who ends up having to close the RM. I see the discussion is unsuspended now, let's see how this goes (or, rather, how long it lasts...).Btw, what are the guidelines on advertising a RM like this? Noting, of course, that it's not a typical RM and uninvolved opinions based on policy would probably be more helpful than those with passion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- The re-opened RM may be advertised on relevant Wikiprojects. El_C 18:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have no desire to take responsibility for this. I have a willingness to help as part of a team effort. I also have a belief that the conversation should happen. So far I have not been able to reconcile these three things. If the original discussion had been allowed to proceed I would have been active in monitoring. When El C closed it down he took on the responsibility for this. I don't know how to restart the discussion without also taking responsibility for it. So while I have given thought to how we might want to resume this conversation I have been shy about actually making it happen because I don't think this is a topic well served by one person leading/taking responsibility. Also not helping is that my onwiki time has been very limited (today's the first day in a while where I've really been able to be on). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- That feels like a bit of a rule creep, ProcrastinatingReader. I'm taking discretionary action and noting it in the log —like with Talk:Ayurveda#RFC:_pseudoscience_in_the_opening_sentence, for example— subject to Committee review. That suffices, in my mind. Anyway, I got a sense (from this) that Barkeep49 is going to take the lead now, which I welcome with enthusiasm. El_C 17:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- El C, on a slightly tangential note, apparently there is past precedent for using discretionary sanctions to regulate how a discussion is conducted (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms, I believe that format/rules was taken under DS, not a specific case remedy, per the Rules section there). Assuming ArbCom takes no interest in this matter, perhaps there's that option if you decide to reopen the RM. A decent set of rules might lead to a more productive discussion on this perennial, controversial question. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- You did not misunderstand:
- Michael, the link is WP:BEANS. The tag is {{spa}}. El_C 12:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- User:Mzajac, if there were not a general understanding that everything was on pause based on User:El_C's statements, then there would have been a general and constant clamoring on this page to restart instead of nearly total silence for the last two weeks. My apologies if you don't want to be included in that understanding. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Our understanding was that the previous RM was suspended pending the result of the ArbCom action and then you would proceed to follow the instructions of the ArbCom decision--either cancelling the previous RM and starting a new one or reopening the old one. But for now we're just waiting. That's actually precisely what you wrote when you closed the RM: "These proceedings are suspended pending their [ArbCom's] decision" --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- I should clarify, for the record, that the arbitration committee has at no time (at least, not to my knowledge) been asked to involve themselves in this content/naming dispute. Rather, they were asked to look at a very narrow set of behavioral circumstances involving allegations of one party's off-wiki canvassing. ——Serial 17:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- In case anyone is wondering why I'm not going to participate this time, the new university semester starts on Monday and all our courses have been converted to on-line delivery. Making that transition and fixing the inevitable problems with new web courses will take most of my time. I simply don't have any more time to devote to extended discussion on Wikipedia. The Cossacks will probably win by default. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: With this talk page being over 190 kilobytes long and only consisting of a move discussion, this must be one of Wikipedia's most heated move discussions ever. JIP | Talk 23:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- 13th the charm? El_C 06:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Assuming this (or a future) RM succeeds, the order will just swap to perennial Kyiv -> Kiev, I suppose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- That didn't happen with other similar moves, like Yogurt and Hillary Clinton. Once they were moved to the "correct" title, they stabilized (and the stability is the proof that the title is "correct"). My theory is that whenever any content is "wrong", even if there is no consensus on wiki to change it, efforts to change it will never stop (because ultimately those efforts come from readers, not the regular editors who !voted in a discussion, and readers vastly outnumber regular editors). Once the "wrong" content is made "right", efforts to change it stop. Stability is how we know when we've got it right. I predict this will stabilize when it's "Kyiv", and it will never stabilize before then. Lev!vich 16:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Assuming this (or a future) RM succeeds, the order will just swap to perennial Kyiv -> Kiev, I suppose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- 13th the charm? El_C 06:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I share your conclusion but not your reasoning. A lot of the RMs and proposals to change have been openly politically motivated. Specifically, it has mostly been pro-Ukrainian partisans pushing a pro-Ukrainian POV. I saw the Twitter threads on this RM when it first started and I can assure you that the same applies here, at least with respect to the original proposal. That's not to say that there isn't a case to be made on the merits of policy, but it is not policy that has driven the proposals to change.
- OTOH, historically speaking, the opposition to change has largely come from linguists and non-Ukrainian English speakers. Despite the characterisation we see drawn by some Ukrainian partisans, this has not generally been a Ukraine vs. Russia dispute on Wikipedia.
- And the reasons this is unlikely to come back if there is a move are first, because we have a two-year moratorium coming when the RM closes (either way), and second, because this point raises far more passion among Ukrainian partisans than it does with anyone else. Kahastok talk 17:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm of the opinion that pretty much all editing of Wikipedia is openly politically motivated, all editors are partisans of one kind or another, and everyone is here to right great wrongs. I think we kid ourselves when we think that people who feel strongly that it should be "Kyiv" are somehow different than people who feel strongly that it should be "Kiev". As if one side was coming from a place of self interest and the other side was coming from a place of neutral purity. It's not true; we're all self-interested animals, we all have passions, and we all have feelings and opinions that are formed by our life experiences. I see people talking off-wiki about how the article should be "Kyiv", but I don't think those people are pushing a pro-Ukranian POV, or at least no more so than the people who oppose this RM are pushing an anti-Ukranian POV -- I just think those aren't accurate ways to frame the issue, and I think that kind of framing lends us towards unhelpful battleground mentalities. Lev!vich 17:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- +1, Levivich. But I’ll go further. It’s pro-Wikipedia to have the article title reflect prevailing usage in reliable sources. I only see some editors resisting the change trying to recast it as “pro-Ukrainian” and “political,” to disparagingly label some other editors as Ukrainians, to prevent requested moves and stifle discussion, and citing irrelevant and inaccurate Google search results, because arguments based on the guidelines and facts don’t support their desired outcome. —Michael Z. 18:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm of the opinion that pretty much all editing of Wikipedia is openly politically motivated, all editors are partisans of one kind or another, and everyone is here to right great wrongs. I think we kid ourselves when we think that people who feel strongly that it should be "Kyiv" are somehow different than people who feel strongly that it should be "Kiev". As if one side was coming from a place of self interest and the other side was coming from a place of neutral purity. It's not true; we're all self-interested animals, we all have passions, and we all have feelings and opinions that are formed by our life experiences. I see people talking off-wiki about how the article should be "Kyiv", but I don't think those people are pushing a pro-Ukranian POV, or at least no more so than the people who oppose this RM are pushing an anti-Ukranian POV -- I just think those aren't accurate ways to frame the issue, and I think that kind of framing lends us towards unhelpful battleground mentalities. Lev!vich 17:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- And the reasons this is unlikely to come back if there is a move are first, because we have a two-year moratorium coming when the RM closes (either way), and second, because this point raises far more passion among Ukrainian partisans than it does with anyone else. Kahastok talk 17:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- So you don't recognise a difference between the argument It should be Kiev because that is the natural conclusion from WP:AT, and the argument it should be Kyiv because Wikipedia should endorse the position of the Ukrainians against the Russians? At times - including in the Twitter threads at the beginning of this RM - it really has been that blatant.
- Bear in mind that in most previous RMs the position with respect to WP:AT and WP:COMMONNAME was entirely obvious in a way that it isn't today. Until the last year or so, just about every English-language source based outside Ukraine used Kiev. And there were still just as many people coming along trying to get us to change the name. Kahastok talk 19:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think the first sentence is true. It is definitely possible to edit without any sort of visible political motivation. There's plenty of editors whose political views would be difficult to ascertain from their contributions, beyond a complete guess. There's maybe some value in the statement that we have some inherent bias based on our experiences, but it's still possible to be aware of that bias, even if you don't know how exactly to adjust for it awareness is usually enough for most discussions. A certain amount of politically motivated editors is actually necessary, but once you go over a certain threshold consensus stops working properly and the wiki loses value. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- At over 210 kilobytes, this move discussion is already over one and a half times as long as the entire article it's about. JIP | Talk 20:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Provisional move moratorium
I'm interested in participants' views before the RM discussion is closed. Should we go with an upper ceiling moratorium of 2 years, or a lower ceiling moratorium of one year? El_C 23:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- One year at the longest. Even some of the oppose votes acknowledge that the trend is towards increasing common usage of Kyiv, but don't support shifting from Kiev just quite yet. A two-year moratorium is too inflexible for what's clearly an accelerating change in usage. Carter (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Personally, I think move moratoriums should be used very sparingly, and only in response to active disruption. – bradv🍁 00:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- One year at absolute most; more realistically six to eight months if we do it. Garuda28 (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- This article has been subject to incessant move requests for years now with barely one or two months between them. Some of those requests were literally based on a single new style guide requiring "Kyiv" or the discovery of an single on-line atlas using "Kyiv". The last moratorium was for six months and literally hours before it expired the anon IP was marshaling their forces for this current one, which was filed within minutes of the six-month moratorium expiring. If this article doesn't meet the criteria for "active disruption" then none do. One year at a minimum if the move request fails. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- One year at absolute most; more realistically six to eight months if we do it. Garuda28 (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- One year seems fine. The rolling move requests, always with the same result, are unhelpful. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- The top of the page lists 3x RMs in 2007; 2x in 2008; 1x each in 2009, 2012, 2013, 2017, and 2018; 2x in 2019; and so far this one in 2020. Two RMs in one year is not all that disruptive and that's only happened once in the last ten years, whereas there were gaps between RMs of 4 years and 3 years in the same time period. There haven't been "too many" RMs and I don't see cause for a move moratorium. Lev!vich 01:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:Levivich you haven't been around this page for years like I have. That list at the top of the page is only partial. It lists RMs that were allowed to proceed. There are at least five times as many that were posted and then immediately deleted because they immediately followed a closed one. Then there are the hundreds of cases of editors posting "We have to change this" threads without trying to initiate formal RMs. It has been a nearly constant chain for years now. Those of us who have been active on this page know its history. I believe that this is your first time at the rodeo so of course you don't know what's been happening. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:Levivich I just realized why you posted something that uninformed. You don't seem to know the existence of Talk:Kiev/naming where move discussions get warehoused to remove the clutter on this page. There are 15 archives on that page dating from 2003 to 2020 with move requests at increasing frequency as the years rolled on. That's where you need to be doing your research. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Having !voted oppose, I myself have been one of those acknowledging several times that there is a trend hinting at a possible "Kyiv" common usage in the future (not yet tho). While a moratorium is fine to prevent disruption, it should obviously not hinder progress in the event that such a situation takes place. That would be a reason for a short moratorium. Sadly, the persistent use of RMs on this page for purely disruptive purposes is just so high, which would advice a longer moratorium. Also, some useful sources such as Google Trends and Ngram typically require a longer timespan for stable changes in usage to be detected. 6 months would be too few, 2 years too much. One year seems about fine. Impru20talk 09:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Changing my stance as a result of the chaotic discussion ensuing below. It's obvious that some users won't stop turning this into a full battleground not even when politely requested to, nor will engage in fair play and good-faith assumption even after a situation such as the one happening in July, with a massive canvassing involved. As a result, I'll now favour a longer moratorium, from 18 months to 24 or anything beyond that if it's agreed upon. I just think Wikipedia should not get wasted itself into nightmarish discussions like this so often. Impru20talk 16:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- The longer the better. That way, if things do change or are changing, the change will be clear.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think 2 years would be best. It takes time for language usage to shift significantly to the point that we can positively say that it has become the most common name. Even assuming usage is currently shifting now, I think after a year from now we would still be in a gray area. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- In the run-up to the previous RM and the previous moratorium we were averaging a new discussion on this point every week or two. The discussion dominated the article, to the extent that no other improvement was possible. The aim of the moratorium was to give some time for things to actually change IRL before we had to have the same discussion again - and give time for article improvement in the meantime. For this reason, the moratorium needs to cover all naming discussion, not just formal RMs. If the page is allowed to be dominated by move discussion for the entire period of moratorium - as some demanded last time - then the moratorium is pointless.
- In terms of how long, it certainly needs to be at least as long as the previous moratorium, and a minimum of 12 months seems sensible. I would suggest no longer than 18 months, just because there is evidence that usage is changing. I would also suggest that we perhaps need to consider how we might prevent the sorts of issues we saw with the current RM - where the RM was started almost immediately after the moratorium expired. The fact that the moratorium end date was clear and known to all meant that the RM could be - and was - significantly advertised externally before it started. Kahastok talk 17:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- All those discussion attempts should have been taken as a clue that the article is at the wrong title. – bradv🍁 17:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Considering how many of them were simple drive by requests from IPs that never edited again or from accounts whose only edits were more of the same "you must do everything the Ukrainian way", no, they shouldn't. This is the first time in history where there is any real change in sources. --Khajidha (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Borscht, according to the most reliable sources, originated in Ukraine. There are regular drive-by editors changing that to Russia. So should we change that information because it is a constant source of irritation to Russian editors? It's also spelled "borscht" in English because we borrowed the word from Yiddish, not Ukrainian. Should we also change the English spelling just because it is a constant source of irritation to both Russian and Ukrainian editors? Drive-by editing is not an indication of misinformation. Ever. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- "Drive-by editing" (also known as "editing") by IPs is how 90%+ of this encyclopedia was written. The opinions of IP editors are no less valid than yours. Lev!vich 02:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- "Opinions" are not a valid basis for decision-making in Wikipedia. You're new to this page, so let me quote the "contributions" of 90% of the IPs who drive-by this page to start "discussions": "'Kiev' is an insult to Ukrainians"; "'Kiev' is Russian propaganda"; "The Rada says it should be 'Kyiv'"; "I demand that you move this article"; etc. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Let me quote some of the "contributions" of a registered editor named TaivoLinguist that are on this page right now:
The evidence is unequivocal despite nationalists' best efforts ...
,... this topic is prime real estate for Ukrainian trolls ...
,It would not surprise me at all if the sons of the motherland are responding to either an official call or an influential voice in the in-language media to troll Wikipedia.
,The Cossacks will probably win by default.
I fail to see a difference between these quotes and the IPs'. Lev!vich 04:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)- LOLOL. What a silly, irrelevant response. Drive-by IPs don't present facts and my IP quotes are the sum total of what they presented as arguments. You really need to examine the archives at Talk:Kiev/naming before continuing on about a disruption problem on this page that you don't seem to know anything about. I know that you'll post another ill-informed attack in support of drive-by IPs here because you don't know any better, but I've said my piece and editors who have been here for more than the few weeks you've been here know precisely what I'm talking about. And just in case you're wondering, my first edit on this Talk page was in 2009 so I do know what I'm talking about in terms of move discussions and disruption. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- This/this and this/this is all the evidence I need to show you have no idea what you are talking about. That you have no idea how to properly use Google to determine COMMONNAME. That you have spent too much time on this talk page and lost your objectivity. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Uh, those links have nothing to do with the contention being argued here? Which is that the large number of IPs and SPAs coming to this page arguing that the page should be moved for non policy-compliant reasons (largely driven by the Ukrainian government's online campaign on this subject) is evidence in and of itself that the article should be moved? Kahastok talk 16:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Kahastok, they have every reason to complain as evidenced by my links. Where is the evidence that the Ukrainian government has made any campaign directed at Wikipedia?
BTW, are you going to fix the !vote you "clerked" out of sight?--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)- OK, you've clearly missed the background here.
- Kahastok, they have every reason to complain as evidenced by my links. Where is the evidence that the Ukrainian government has made any campaign directed at Wikipedia?
- Uh, those links have nothing to do with the contention being argued here? Which is that the large number of IPs and SPAs coming to this page arguing that the page should be moved for non policy-compliant reasons (largely driven by the Ukrainian government's online campaign on this subject) is evidence in and of itself that the article should be moved? Kahastok talk 16:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- This/this and this/this is all the evidence I need to show you have no idea what you are talking about. That you have no idea how to properly use Google to determine COMMONNAME. That you have spent too much time on this talk page and lost your objectivity. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- LOLOL. What a silly, irrelevant response. Drive-by IPs don't present facts and my IP quotes are the sum total of what they presented as arguments. You really need to examine the archives at Talk:Kiev/naming before continuing on about a disruption problem on this page that you don't seem to know anything about. I know that you'll post another ill-informed attack in support of drive-by IPs here because you don't know any better, but I've said my piece and editors who have been here for more than the few weeks you've been here know precisely what I'm talking about. And just in case you're wondering, my first edit on this Talk page was in 2009 so I do know what I'm talking about in terms of move discussions and disruption. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Let me quote some of the "contributions" of a registered editor named TaivoLinguist that are on this page right now:
- "Opinions" are not a valid basis for decision-making in Wikipedia. You're new to this page, so let me quote the "contributions" of 90% of the IPs who drive-by this page to start "discussions": "'Kiev' is an insult to Ukrainians"; "'Kiev' is Russian propaganda"; "The Rada says it should be 'Kyiv'"; "I demand that you move this article"; etc. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- "Drive-by editing" (also known as "editing") by IPs is how 90%+ of this encyclopedia was written. The opinions of IP editors are no less valid than yours. Lev!vich 02:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Borscht, according to the most reliable sources, originated in Ukraine. There are regular drive-by editors changing that to Russia. So should we change that information because it is a constant source of irritation to Russian editors? It's also spelled "borscht" in English because we borrowed the word from Yiddish, not Ukrainian. Should we also change the English spelling just because it is a constant source of irritation to both Russian and Ukrainian editors? Drive-by editing is not an indication of misinformation. Ever. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Considering how many of them were simple drive by requests from IPs that never edited again or from accounts whose only edits were more of the same "you must do everything the Ukrainian way", no, they shouldn't. This is the first time in history where there is any real change in sources. --Khajidha (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- All those discussion attempts should have been taken as a clue that the article is at the wrong title. – bradv🍁 17:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the Ukrainian government has for the past few years operated the "CorrectUA" campaign which aims to change the customary English usage for cities and places in Ukraine. Most prominently, this includes the #KyivNotKiev social media campaign, which targets anyone who refers to the city as Kiev. This article actually contains an image of the letter the Ukrainian government sent Wikipedia asking us to move this article, and many of the IPs and SPAs who came to this page literally used the hashtag #KyivNotKiev.
- There is clearly now an argument that can be made that the usage has changed and we should change with it. But that is a recent event. This time last year, the large majority of the sources that advocates of Kyiv are now citing were universally using Kiev. It is patently not Wikipedia's job to campaign for changes to English usage, and if we had moved last year, that is what we would have been doing. This time last year, no reasonable application of WP:AT could lead to a move to this article. Which is why the RM last October/November ended with strong consensus for the article to remain at Kiev. Kahastok talk 17:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just because User:Coffeeandcrumbs showed up here like a tornado doesn't mean that he understands what User:Levivich and I had been talking about. Like an obnoxious acquaintance who shows up for the last sentence of a long discussion and tries to insert himself into the conversation he barged in with nothing to say that was relevant to the issue of a moratorium. Coffeeandcrumbs read one sentence and then went off on a completely irrelevant and meaningless tangent based on his own frustration at being left out of this conversation because he didn't have Talk:Kiev on his watchlist. Those of us who are truly interested have tracked this on their watchlists for years. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am perfectly aware of what is going on. My point still stands that the Ukrainian government has not directed anything at Wikipedia. They have every right to advocate the name to the world. Show me one place where they say go to Wikipedia and advocate for a name change. I bet we are the least of their concerns.
- I have read this entire page including the subpage. The evidence is clear that you do not know how to properly judge COMMONNAME. Your links at #Survey (July) are seriously flawed and you have misled this RM. Your assertions such as
The evidence is unequivocal despite nationalists' best efforts..
show your lack of objectivity on this matter. After derailing this RM, now you are advocating that we put another unreasonable moratorium on this issue so you can continue your WP:OWNERship of this page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)- User:Coffeeandcrumbs your comments are still not relevant to the conversation that Levivich and I were having and that you butted into the end of. We were not talking about the documented interference of the Ukrainian government or about the meaning of WP:COMMONNAME. Not in the least. Just so you don't continue ignorantly plowing on like a bull in a china shop, we were discussing the constant disruption to the page by anonymous IPs between formal move requests and the potential length of a moratorium should this RM also fail. That's ALL that we were discussing. So your irrelevant screaming about COMMONNAME wasn't a contribution to our conversation, which had actually concluded before your rude arrival and ranting. Your comments aren't even relevant to the topic of this thread, which is the length of any potential moratorium if the RM fails. Read the section heading. Your comments might belong elsewhere on this page, but not in this thread. Pay attention when you charge onto a Talk Page. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I will make it simple and to the point Any moratorium is unreasonable because watchers of this page do not understand what they are talking about and any failure of any flawed RM in the past is no indication of the outcome of a future RM. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:Coffeeandcrumbs your comments are still not relevant to the conversation that Levivich and I were having and that you butted into the end of. We were not talking about the documented interference of the Ukrainian government or about the meaning of WP:COMMONNAME. Not in the least. Just so you don't continue ignorantly plowing on like a bull in a china shop, we were discussing the constant disruption to the page by anonymous IPs between formal move requests and the potential length of a moratorium should this RM also fail. That's ALL that we were discussing. So your irrelevant screaming about COMMONNAME wasn't a contribution to our conversation, which had actually concluded before your rude arrival and ranting. Your comments aren't even relevant to the topic of this thread, which is the length of any potential moratorium if the RM fails. Read the section heading. Your comments might belong elsewhere on this page, but not in this thread. Pay attention when you charge onto a Talk Page. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Just because User:Coffeeandcrumbs showed up here like a tornado doesn't mean that he understands what User:Levivich and I had been talking about. Like an obnoxious acquaintance who shows up for the last sentence of a long discussion and tries to insert himself into the conversation he barged in with nothing to say that was relevant to the issue of a moratorium. Coffeeandcrumbs read one sentence and then went off on a completely irrelevant and meaningless tangent based on his own frustration at being left out of this conversation because he didn't have Talk:Kiev on his watchlist. Those of us who are truly interested have tracked this on their watchlists for years. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- There is clearly now an argument that can be made that the usage has changed and we should change with it. But that is a recent event. This time last year, the large majority of the sources that advocates of Kyiv are now citing were universally using Kiev. It is patently not Wikipedia's job to campaign for changes to English usage, and if we had moved last year, that is what we would have been doing. This time last year, no reasonable application of WP:AT could lead to a move to this article. Which is why the RM last October/November ended with strong consensus for the article to remain at Kiev. Kahastok talk 17:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Now that was a relevant comment finally. I've reformatted it so that your comment appears as a contribution to the discussion rather than being lost in the irrelevant part of your posts in this thread. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- No thanks. I have already made a comment below. The above was a response to
editors who have been here for more than the few weeks you've been here know precisely what I'm talking about
. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)- I notice that you had not edited on this page before July 2020 and that you have no history whatsoever of editing in Ukrainian topics at any point in your 2.5 years on Wikipedia, so I'm not surprised at your disdain for experienced editors. Were you one of the editors who was recruited to come and support the RM? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Coffeeandcrumbs is an editor in good standing. They are not an SPA. Please refrain from this line of inquiry. It is inappropriate. El_C 02:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Noting comment which was self-removed (rightly so). But the canvassing query is still a bit much, notwithstanding that. El_C 02:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I looked back at the RM from November of 2019 and he showed up to oppose the 8-month moratorium at that time (but didn't post a comment on the RM). I was, indeed, wrong about the "spa" marking and that's why I deleted the comment. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- That is not what WP:SPA means. El_C 02:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- That can simply be explained by the article Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump to which I am the major contributor. I only discovered this situation while writing that article. I kept seeing the sources I was using spell it as Kyiv and came here to figure why. You will notice the first time I had to type the name of the city is in the section titled #November 15–16, 2019. When I came here, I realized we were considering placing a 12-month moratorium on the subject. I oppose long moratoriums 100x more than I oppose the name Kiev. It contrary to the spirit of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, specifically that "
no editor owns an article and any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited
". In this case, mercilessly discussed. If SPAs are a concern, WP:DENY is the good option. Simply do not reply to comments, and {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}} is also available. There are many options besides barring any discussion of the topic. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I looked back at the RM from November of 2019 and he showed up to oppose the 8-month moratorium at that time (but didn't post a comment on the RM). I was, indeed, wrong about the "spa" marking and that's why I deleted the comment. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I notice that you had not edited on this page before July 2020 and that you have no history whatsoever of editing in Ukrainian topics at any point in your 2.5 years on Wikipedia, so I'm not surprised at your disdain for experienced editors. Were you one of the editors who was recruited to come and support the RM? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- No thanks. I have already made a comment below. The above was a response to
- No less than 12 months, no more than 18, imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Giving the distruptive of this RM by many users, including IP editors which were more than 15 times that RM from Kiev to Kyiv discussed, I suggested a page moratorium for more than 2 years, I proposed 5 years or a decades. It proposed to have take more time for other languages for still think which spelling is best. I'm not involved in this RM regarding changing name from Kiev to Kyiv. 36.68.167.178 (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think 6 months is more than enough, we live in a fast changing world. 17:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludost Mlačani (talk • contribs)
- Any moratorium longer than 6 months seems counter to WP:5P3. It has been acknowledged that Kyiv is quickly gaining wider use. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- The argument for a longer moratorium on this topic of discussion is to save some editors the trouble of having to reply to some other editors: a “solution” for a problem that doesn’t affect the quality of Wikipedia. The argument for a shorter moratorium, or none at all, is that it promotes communication and allows Wikipedia respond to a changing situation, one that has changed more in the last quarter than in the previous year, more in the last six years than in the previous decade. For Wikipedia, minimize any moratorium. —Michael Z. 20:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Continuous contentious attempts to change prior consensus is called "disruption" in Wikipedia, not "inconvenience", especially when it takes up time that can be spent productively improving the article. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think you’re mistaken, TaivoLinguist. WP:disruptive editing is when one persistent editor doesn’t know when to stop. When dozens of editors independently make the same valid point and you want to shut them all down, I think you might be the one being disruptive. —Michael Z. 03:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I believe that you need to read the definition you just posted, User:Mzajac: "When one persistent editor". I have never been "one editor", standing alone against a tsunami. The reason this move request didn't succeed years ago or even last November, is that I have never been alone. Your POV is showing. Even now, there has been enough opposition to the move that WP:SNOW cannot be applied, even though that is your fervent wish. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:TaivoLinguist WP:POV pushing is a serious accusation; Casting aspersions at other editors without actual serious proof behind those aspirations is not a path towards a productive discussion - I encourage everyone in this discussion to be respectful of others and discuss content, and not the contributor.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Anon IP, WP:DISRUPT is a serious accusation as well, but you ignored User:Mzajac's unwarranted aspersions directed at me without actual serious proof. Is there a reason that you ignored his aspersions while focusing on mine other than the fact that he supports your own POV? Indeed, you have added far more combative verbage on this page than anyone else has and you were blocked for that very thing. I suggest that you stay in your glass house and stop throwing stones. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, TaivoLinguist. It sounds to me like you’re saying that if some editors WP:TAGTEAM then they cannot be WP:DISRUPTIVE. Maybe you’re right. But you haven’t addressed my main point, which wasn’t about you. I disputed your assertion that the many editors proposing the RM over the years were disruptive, per Wikipedia’s specific sense. I think they were acting in good faith, practically every single one. —Michael Z. 02:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Anon IP, WP:DISRUPT is a serious accusation as well, but you ignored User:Mzajac's unwarranted aspersions directed at me without actual serious proof. Is there a reason that you ignored his aspersions while focusing on mine other than the fact that he supports your own POV? Indeed, you have added far more combative verbage on this page than anyone else has and you were blocked for that very thing. I suggest that you stay in your glass house and stop throwing stones. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- User:TaivoLinguist WP:POV pushing is a serious accusation; Casting aspersions at other editors without actual serious proof behind those aspirations is not a path towards a productive discussion - I encourage everyone in this discussion to be respectful of others and discuss content, and not the contributor.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I believe that you need to read the definition you just posted, User:Mzajac: "When one persistent editor". I have never been "one editor", standing alone against a tsunami. The reason this move request didn't succeed years ago or even last November, is that I have never been alone. Your POV is showing. Even now, there has been enough opposition to the move that WP:SNOW cannot be applied, even though that is your fervent wish. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think you’re mistaken, TaivoLinguist. WP:disruptive editing is when one persistent editor doesn’t know when to stop. When dozens of editors independently make the same valid point and you want to shut them all down, I think you might be the one being disruptive. —Michael Z. 03:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- In case it isn't clear from my comments in this section or elsewhere on this page, I oppose any move moratorium at this point, especially if it's applied preemptively. Consensus can change, and we can't predetermine a length of time that it might take for consensus to change. The impression I have of move moratoriums is that their existence is evidence that the article is at the wrong title. However, I would support a restriction on any new RMs that they be accompanied by new evidence, and any that don't have new evidence be speedily closed. – bradv🍁 02:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- If it is also uncelar, I'm looking to build on the last moratorium applied to the renaming of this page. Yes, consensus can change, but the pace in which it is challenged needs to be tempered here, is my view. El_C 02:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- El_C, I have never been able to find clear evidence that there was consensus for the previous “moratorium,” or a clear statement of what it was a moratorium on. It was not merely a ban on move requests, but a range of discussion was declared “related to naming” by a small number of editors and shut down at their discretion. This talk page felt like an extremely hostile environment. “Build on the last moratorium” sounds horrible to me. I would appreciate it if any new moratorium was explicitly defined. —Michael Z. 03:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- El_C I would have to agree here with User:Mzajac and say that I too have failed to find clear evidence that there was any consensus for the previous “moratorium”; in fact, as has been aptly shown in my summary entitled "The constant harassing of those editors perceived to be 'enemies' on Talk:Kiev/naming and Talk:Kiev needs to stop" from July 5, 2020 (which you, regretfully, removed (diff) there is no evidence of any consensus to the prior "moratorium", instead it was more of a case of WP:OWNERship-like behaviour when a small number of editors decided to shut down “anything related to naming” at their discretion (even though that is not what other editors in that "moratorium" discussion (such as User:Chrzwzcz and User:Roman_Spinner) agreed to.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am hoping that there may be no need for a moratorium, but if there is to be one, it should last no longer than six to nine months. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Barkeep49 that the length of a moratorium doesn't need any sort of consensus from enwiki community, and as such sysop El_C should ignore all moratorium length suggestions that were proposed in this section and instead just make a decision themselves (be it 2 years, 5 years or 10 years - it is entirely up to them) and announce it in advance (but unlike on July 2, this time El_C should clearly cite the powers granted to him (and all other enwiki admins) by Arbitration Committee's Discretionary sanctions in relation to WP:ARBEE (which covers all Eastern European topics on enwiki)). P.S. I just realized now why Barkeep49 struck out their original comment and wrote that the moratorium is already in place: El_C did not strike-through their original 2 year moratorium language from July 2, quote
I am also enacting a provisional move moratorium of 2 years
. Then what is the point of this discussion if El-C has already enacted a 2 year moratorium (implying, but not explicitly citing, powers granted to them by Arbitration Committee's Discretionary sanctions in relation to WP:ARBEE)? (update: until now I did not know about the existence of WP:Arbitration enforcement log page, so I guess El_C did make a log there at WP:AEL that they are enacting a 2 year per WP:ARBEE's ArbCom's DS, but frankly an average Joe editor of enwiki would never know hot to get to WP:AEL, so I would ask El_C to also explicitly reference on this talk page WP:ARBEE's ArbCom's DS if/when they make any more DS-related actions on this page. Thank you) --73.75.115.5 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wait a minute. Wasn't 73.75.115.5 blocked from editing here? I see no lifting of the block order that extends to the end of September on their Talk Page. Considering that the anon IP is a clear demonstration of disruptive SPA editing here I don't understand how this editor has been allowed to return. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- @TaivoLinguist I was blocked from Aug 31 to Sept 5, when I was unblocked. Also I am not sure why you are asking this question here again, after you yourself said couple of hours ago on my talk page that you are aware that I was unblocked. p.s. Anyways, my block/unblock is irrelevant to the topic at hand (which is moratorium) and as such I am not sure why we would discuss it here--73.75.115.5 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- We discuss it here because there is no evidence on your Talk Page that you have been unblocked. When I posted on your Talk Page about it, you simply deleted my post. You seem unwilling to discuss it and if you are still blocked then your contributions on this page should be null and void and your participation penalized. If the block is no longer in effect, then there should be an official notice on your Talk Page noting that fact. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- @TaivoLinguist I was unblocked on Sep 5 (diff) you can find all details about it my Talk Page archive: User_talk:73.75.115.5/archive. Also I did not delete your comment, but moved it to my archive (diff). But regardless, I will reiterate my statement above:
my block/unblock is irrelevant to the topic at hand (which is moratorium) and as such I am not sure why we would discuss it here
, so let's be productive members of this discussion and stay on topic. Thank you.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)- The last thing I'll say on this matter is that if you were still blocked from participating here, it would be perfectly relevant to the discussion. The fact there there is still a block notice on your Talk Page, but no notice that it has been lifted is relevant. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- I could be fine with the unblock if the IP had stuck with what they seemingly promised to do as a condition for being unblocked. However, unilaterally removing the collapsible box of their attacks above and swarming the discussion again as if this talk page was their own backyard (something they keep consistently complaining about when users not supportive of their view post any additional comment) does not seem like "engaging enwiki community through a constructive dialogue". It's curious how the discussion in this talk page returned to calmness and constructiveness from 31 August to 5 September, then once again users are discussing on each others' behaviours as a result of the IP's re-appearance here (just check the discussion above, for Lord's sake). Just saying. Impru20talk 16:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I wish this section would return to discussing the topic at hand (i.e., moratorium) and not me. But since you have mentioned me again, User:Impru20, I kindly ask that you revert you collapsing of the portion of the section "General discussion" ( diff) and as I described in my edit (diff)
the bottom part should not be collapsed if the top part is uncollapsed - if we are to collapse anything in the "General discussion" section, it should be collapsed completely (like in the "Off-wiki canvassing" section)
, particularly because the purpose of that discussion was to make sure editors ensure that if they plan on posting more than one explanation for their voting using a separate paragraph and a*
within the "Survey" section, they should instead only post one voting comment using a separate paragraph and a*
, and all other voting comments with a separate paragraph and a*
should be posted under the "General discussion" section (and not "Survey" section) in order to aid the future closer of this discussion (as was rightly pointed out by sysop El_C) and to ensure that other editors do not get confused by multiple voting comments from a single editor (which was rightly pointed out by sysop Mzajac). Also Impru20 I kindly ask you to please stay civil and WP:Assume good faith about all editors in this discussion, thank you.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)- The collapsing was agreed with an admin and it's just in the benefit of the discussion. If anyone wishes to read your attacks on other users, they can do so at their own leisure, but that's not a material part of the RM. And excuse me, but in your original edit you complained about it not being collapsed "entirely" rather than it having to do about anything related to any hint on how should others behave (but surely, not through aspersion-casting as you did there). The first comment was on-topic, everything else wasn't, that's why it was done that way. I also remind you that you acknowledged yourself your own disruption there, so that you could get yourself out of the block from this talk page, so please respect the conditions you commited yourself to fulfilling. I kindly ask you two things:
- To please stay civil and assume good faith about all editors in this discussion. That includes not getting yourself involved in unfounded accusations against other users.
- To please stop bludgeoning the discussion, as well as unilaterally re-editing and re-structuring it in contravention of WP:TALKO, WP:TALK#REPLIED and other related policies. You are the nominator. You have made your stance very clear to everyone in the RM proposal but, in case anyone had any doubt about that, you made yourself sure to fill the whole discussion with replies. It's about time for you to please stop replying everyone everywhere and let others have their chance at giving out their opinions, specially when every discussion you are joining as of lately seems to degenerate into a battleground.
- I kindly ask you these two things. Thank you. Impru20talk 17:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I wish this section would return to discussing the topic at hand (i.e., moratorium) and not me. But since you have mentioned me again, User:Impru20, I kindly ask that you revert you collapsing of the portion of the section "General discussion" ( diff) and as I described in my edit (diff)
- I could be fine with the unblock if the IP had stuck with what they seemingly promised to do as a condition for being unblocked. However, unilaterally removing the collapsible box of their attacks above and swarming the discussion again as if this talk page was their own backyard (something they keep consistently complaining about when users not supportive of their view post any additional comment) does not seem like "engaging enwiki community through a constructive dialogue". It's curious how the discussion in this talk page returned to calmness and constructiveness from 31 August to 5 September, then once again users are discussing on each others' behaviours as a result of the IP's re-appearance here (just check the discussion above, for Lord's sake). Just saying. Impru20talk 16:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- The last thing I'll say on this matter is that if you were still blocked from participating here, it would be perfectly relevant to the discussion. The fact there there is still a block notice on your Talk Page, but no notice that it has been lifted is relevant. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- @TaivoLinguist I was unblocked on Sep 5 (diff) you can find all details about it my Talk Page archive: User_talk:73.75.115.5/archive. Also I did not delete your comment, but moved it to my archive (diff). But regardless, I will reiterate my statement above:
- We discuss it here because there is no evidence on your Talk Page that you have been unblocked. When I posted on your Talk Page about it, you simply deleted my post. You seem unwilling to discuss it and if you are still blocked then your contributions on this page should be null and void and your participation penalized. If the block is no longer in effect, then there should be an official notice on your Talk Page noting that fact. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- @TaivoLinguist I was blocked from Aug 31 to Sept 5, when I was unblocked. Also I am not sure why you are asking this question here again, after you yourself said couple of hours ago on my talk page that you are aware that I was unblocked. p.s. Anyways, my block/unblock is irrelevant to the topic at hand (which is moratorium) and as such I am not sure why we would discuss it here--73.75.115.5 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- I presume El C is looking for thoughts on the duration, as they stated in the original message. It doesn't need consensus to enact, but that doesn't mean an admin can't ask for opinions. Moratoriums aren't limited to DS topics fwiw. As for this title, if it's "on the tipping point" it should be moved rather than keep up this weird time-wasting nonsense. If it's far from tipping point, the situation won't change in 6 months, & certainly not in 1 or 3. This RM alone is almost 300k chars & counting + plus all the crap in archives = a lot of collective community time that could've been better spent elsewhere on wiki, or off it. Last moratorium was 9mo. No moratorium => this RM likely happens again in 2 wks, then 2 wks after that, & again for every minor situational change (or even no change), just like at Killing of George Floyd recently & other articles. That would just be disruptive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- You presume correctly. Note that I already expected that, generally, those who favour the longstanding name would wish to have the moratorium lengthened to the uttermost, while those who favour the evolving name would wish the opposite. That's because I have encountered this perennial tendency on multiple occasions. The fact that if the evolving name gains consensus the moratorium becomes largely a formality is besides the point. There is simply no other way that I know of to prevent RM fatigue from what likely would be a series of constant requests. Anyway, I will render my decision soon. Thanks, everyone, for your input. El_C 16:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Wait a minute. Wasn't 73.75.115.5 blocked from editing here? I see no lifting of the block order that extends to the end of September on their Talk Page. Considering that the anon IP is a clear demonstration of disruptive SPA editing here I don't understand how this editor has been allowed to return. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Closing the RM
El C noted: My thinking is that this discussion should remain open longer than the usual one week, but I'll leave that at the discretion of the respective closer.
Perhaps we should discuss what the plan is for this RM on September 5. It's not exactly ideal to wait around until someone individually decides the appropriate time has passed and closes it. Should it remain open for longer than a week? Ideally we should also know so it can be relisted on the 7th (so the bot can readvertise it), if we're going with a longer period. There's also the question of who's to close, and should it be an admin (noting that although NACs are equally permitted for moves, for a controversial topic like this such a close would likely end up being challenged at MR), it's more a question of the appearance of competence and impartiality, I think. I guess per Editors are under no obligation to wait to close a move request after it is relisted. Once a move request has been open for the full seven days, it may be closed at any time by an uninvolved editor.
it should be relisted on the 5th, and any uninvolved editor may close it at any point after the 5th? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Since when is one week usual? For smaller items, sure, since things have died down by the end of one week. Most larger RMs tend to close when input has slowed to a drip, which is often weeks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- This RM should remain open for 30 days at least. Battlegrounds have been drawn on the supporters side. And it does not appear that the opposers have looked at the evidence presented. Most simply state COMMONNAME without offering any evidence to this claim. One opposer, followed by others, argues using Google Trends, which is nonsense considering Chicken Kiev exists.
- This needs to be much wider advertised. I did not even know it had reopened until just now. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's listed on WP:CD — what else would you recommend? El_C 20:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class WikiProject Cities articles
- All WikiProject Cities pages
- B-Class Ukraine articles
- Top-importance Ukraine articles
- WikiProject Ukraine articles
- B-Class former country articles
- WikiProject Former countries articles
- Unassessed Russia articles
- Unknown-importance Russia articles
- Unknown-importance Unassessed Russia articles
- Unassessed Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- Requested moves