Talk:Kyiv/naming

This is a subpage of Talk:Kiev for discussing the name of the article Kiev. Please take all discussion of the name here, reserving the regular talkpage for other matters. I hope that this division will benefit both the regular talkpage and the name discussion itself. Happy editing. Bishonen | talk.

Please note that due to technical reasons any actual move requests need to be made on Talk:Kiev, but should be moved here after they have closed. 199.125.109.99 (talk)

Summary of older discussions over naming the article

Partial list of previous move requests:

• March 2003
• July 2007
• September 2007 (1)
• September 2007 (2)
• February 2008
• September 2008
• October 2009

Proposition continued

Dear Andriy155, you take offense incorrectly. I have already explained that for many reasons I personally support "Kyiv", but cannot (yet) as common English spelling. What I was addressing was the commentary that "Kiev" is being pushed by some anti-Ukrainian Russian-glorifying conspiritorial cabal. That did not belong in this discussion.
   As you've corresponded with the USBGN, you will note, again, that there is only one "standard" and, if defined, one "conventional," name; again, "conventional" being defined when it

1. differs from "standard" and
2. represents the predominant English language usage by the general public

When USBGN deletes its "conventional" Kiev entry, then that will be fair and objective expert evidence that Kyiv has become the predominant English usage name for Київ.

P.S. Travel guides and maps are not indicators of common English language usage, they are indicators of the most likely transliterations a traveler is likely to find for non-Roman alphabet languages. You will note that Roman-alphabet place names are typically reproduced with all their diacritics and often in the native language—again, not necessarily representing the most common English language usage. PetersV       TALK 02:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - no offense taken. With regards to USBGN, you may be right on the matter - it seems as though you have dealt with them much longer. I must disagree with you regarding maps and travel guides. I specifically checked for two other names: Warsaw and Rome. Both were spelled as Rome and Warsaw and not Roma and Warszawa (Frommers, Michelin, Mapart and Lonely Planet did it - at least for the editions I looked at). However, all, except for the one that I mentioned, used Kyiv. So, I am not sure I can agree with you. Please provide factual evidence to support your viewpoint. The only map that, as far as I know, does what you have described is Google Maps, no? No word on Encarta from you.--Andriy155 (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

On Encarta... Microsoft is pulling the plug. I was quite excited by it (and its possibilities) when it first came out, but having grown up on real encyclopedias, I was disappointed in its quality and chalked it up to Microsoft hubris thinking they could do anything, including writing encyclopedias. And so I've never used it (or cited it on WP) for anything. While the "changing market"—including the ascent of WP—is being blamed for its demise, for me at least, Encarta never hit the ground running, just with a thud. Obviously many editors do cite it here on WP, but I don't use it. On guides and maps... more applicable to printed maps, somewhat less to guides, but I have seen local versus common English in both, so I'd rather not argue over which guide book is more authoritative. Lastly, on BGN... I use it as an objective barometer—that the BGN conventional "Kiev" exists—for common English language usage not because I'm trying to be a hardass about it, but because that is how I keep my editorial opinion objective and separate from my personal leanings. For me, the day that the BGN conventional entry for Kiev is deleted is the day the article is renamed to "Kyiv." Obviously, WP is built on consensus and you are free to build one here and I wish you good fortune. I've told you the conditions under which I'll editorially support the rename, and conversely, the conditions under which I'll oppose it.

   It's only about what the common English name is for Київ, nothing else. Because Kiev is so similar to Kyiv for English-speakers, it confuses the issue that it's about the wants of Ukraine, about Russian and not Ukrainian being transliterated, etc. Those are all perfectly valid and interesting points as to how a name came to be, but they are not material to the concept of "common English usage." If Київ was named Марз in Russian under the Russian Empire and that created the common English usage of "Mars", the article would be titled "Mars" until "Kyiv" replaced "Mars" as common English usage. How common English language usage came to be doesn't count. It's not about whose transliteration of Київ versus Ки́ев is the "right" one. PetersV       TALK 07:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The only issue that I have had is the failure of the English world to acknowledge the change of the city's name from Ки́ев to Київ. The common misconception is that they are the same word and that Kiev and Kyiv are two English transliterations of the same word... they are not. In fact, the word Ки́ев exists in the Ukrainian language, but the Ukrainian name for the city is Київ. I am sure that most English speakers don't realize the nature of the incorrectness here, and I admit that confusion (as to which city is being discussed) is unlikely. Most Ukrainians would probably not recognize the difference between "New York" and "Newark", thinking they are transliterations of the same word or city name. Bombay's name was changed to Mumbai, which is distinct enough in sound difference that an English-speaker recognizes that they are dealing with a new word. Ukraine's "mistake" was changing the name of the city to such a similar-sounding word, which does in fact trace its roots back to an even more similar sounding word. 65.4.209.91 (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the word Киев does not exist in the Ukrainian language. This word - Киев - exists only in Russian. The only correct word in Ukrainian is Київ. --Perohanych (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose folks are getting tired of me by now. The etymology of "KIEV" and what letters in the alphabet of what language were originally transliterated versus what that official preference (by Ukraine) is today is not at issue here. If most people in the English speaking world used MARS to refer to Київ, the article would be titled MARS. I've already discussed what I consider my objective litmus test for when it's time to rename the article. PetersV       TALK 22:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As Vecrumba say, we follow English usage. Details in our general naming conventions policy, and the specific ones for geographic names. - Best, Ev (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The word Киев DOES exist in the Ukrainian language, and can easily be constructed using the letters of the Ukrainian alphabet, appearing identical to the Russian word. I have spent many years in Ukraine and I hear this word used all the time. When Ukrainian is being spoken in conversation, this word in context most often refers to the capital of the Ukrainian SSR during the time of the Soviet Union. It can also refer to the pre-Soviet city of Ukraine (1800's or earlier?), when the Ukrainian word (which now no longer exists in the modern language) was closer in pronunciation to Киев.

The word Киев DOES NOT exist in the Ukrainian language. Ukrainians use the word Киев when they speak in Russian and use Київ when they speak in Ukrainian. There is no any Ukrainian dictionary, no any literature novel or newspaper article in Ukrainian language with the word Киев. --Perohanych (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a Ukrainian dictionary right here that does include the word Киев. The definition is a bit nondescript and would not support either my argument or yours. More importantly, if we are comparing apples to apples -- arguing which is "common" English usage, then we should also consider whether Ukrainian speakers "commonly" use the word Киев when speaking Ukrainian. My experience is that they do, especially in the western portions of Ukraine, when referring to the SSR capital or ancient city of Kiev/Kyiv.187.153.2.186 (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a scan of the page where you found Киев. Discussion whether is Kiev or Kyiv in English. It should inevitably happen before the final transition is made to Kyiv. However, trying to convince everyone that it is Киев and not Київ in Ukrainian is beyond funny.--Andriy155 (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. I am not trying to convince anyone that Киев equals Київ in Ukrainian, in fact just the opposite. They are two distinct words that both exist in the Ukrainian language. Київ is the name of the capitol city of modern Ukraine, Киев is not. An analogy to this would be the city of Charleston in the USA. It is still referred to as "Charlestown" when speaking of the original city as it existed over 100 years ago, but the name has been changed to Charleston to conform to the American standard of English. The word "Charlestown" still exists in the American dialect of English, but only as a reference to the city as it existed in the past. Of course, this is an issue of dialects within the same language, but then also the Ukrainians had a word that sounded like "Kiev" long before the Russians did, before the Soviet Union and before the modern-day Ukrainian word that sounds more like "Kyiv". It's rarely black and white, is it? As for the scan, wish I had a scanner, but I'll quote the entry here in English -- Киев: Capitol city of Ukraine. see Київ. -- If there were ever a more ambiguous connotation, I haven't seen one. Is it trying to say the words are interchangeable (I think not), or is it saying that the reader should be using Київ instead, or is there clarification in the definition for Київ (not really -- I checked). The use of Киев while speaking Ukrainian is a subtle situation, but I can assure you from personal experience that it does exist -- we may just have to agree to disagree about this. I'm not going to post any more about this for now as I feel I've made my point and that any more would distract from the main argument of renaming the article. I strongly support the move to Kyiv, but Wikipedia policy is the main block to this.Srilm (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To Srilm: You are not right. There IS NO word Киев in the Ukrainian language. You have to look for the ethymology of the word. There was a Prince in the very old times. His name was Кий. That Кий was the founder of the city. The city name means belonging to Кий. When one uses the Ukrainian grammar - he receives Київ for belonging to Кий. When one uses the Russian grammar - he receives Киев for belonging to Кий. When one uses the Polish grammar - he receives Киюв / Kijów for belonging to Кий. --Perohanych (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am correct, but you are not seeing the point that I am making. I am well aware of the history of this city, and have studied it for many years. I think the point that you are making is that the modern word Киев is not innately Ukrainian, which is also arguable, since one of the ancient Ukrainian names for the city was pronounced (probably) more like "Kiev" than "Kyiv". You could probably make a good argument that the Russian language actually acquired the word Киев from the Ukrainians. Is it true that the word Киев is not the correct name of the city today? Absolutely. Is Киев a word that is usable in the Ukrainian language? Absolutely. It serves to differentiate the modern capitol city from the capitol of the Ukrainian SSR and/or the ancient capitol. I hear it used all the time in Ukrainian in instances such as "do you remember the good times we had in Kiev back in the 1970's?" Just because it is "borrowed" from Russian (again, an arguable point) does not mean that it is not a legitimate Ukrainian word. This is why I support the move to "Kyiv" for this article -- we English speakers are transliterating the wrong word. See my examples above about words from other dialects/languages being used in context, and therefore being legitimate words in the receiving language. Here's another one... The word "croissant" appears in most English dictionaries. This is 100% a French word. We didn't even attempt to change the spelling or pronunciation, and yet since English has no other word to describe the pastry, well there is this 100% French word that is clearly now a part of the English vocabulary. Similarly, virtually all of the Ukrainians I know, rather than saying "Kyiv back when it was called Kiev in Russian when we all spoke Russian", instead just say "Kiev". As a side note, I have noticed that most residents of Kyiv pronounce it "Kiev" when speaking to me in English, although this seems to be improving every time I visit. This could be a part of the problem in getting the title of this article changed. I realize there is some indignation among nationalistic Ukrainians that a word that is perceived as solely Russian is sometimes used to refer to the capitol. Considering the history, I don't really blame them, but Киев is part of their history, and always will be, and it is a legitimate word in the Ukrainian language.Srilm (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The second poster is correct -- Wikipedia policy is predominant English usage, and if the English world chooses to call Kyiv/Kiev Mars, then it will be Mars here. The point I have made is should we consider whether predominant English usage is based on incorrect data and/or an ignorance of the situation, or does that even matter? How many English-speakers (percentage-wise) realize that the name of Kyiv/Kiev was changed by its governement?Srilm (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A good point, but no, it doesn't matter. We are not in the business of trying to 'correct' the entire English-speaking world. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WP using the "wrong" transliteration has been variously taken as anti-Ukrainian, pro-Soviet, USSR-glorification, et al., and regardless it should be changed to the "correct" one. Romanization, as in transliterating a person's name, is different from common English usage. The two are (unfortunately, from my personal perspective) not the same. PētersV       TALK 14:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Supporting the change to change the article name to "Kyiv" and redirect from Kiev. Oh and how exactly is it relevant to give the Russian name of the city in the first line?... --98.227.38.196 (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't support, and you have not made an argument for common English usage. Personally I agree, but WP is not about personal wants and desires.

   That said, I don't see any reason for Russian in the lead, Russian is not an official language of Ukraine. PētersV       TALK 14:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For very many years Russian was the official language spoken in Kiev. Surely it would be helpful to have that Russian name in an encyclopedia? Putting it there doesn't in any way imply that Wikipedia approves of the use of Russian during that time, or that Wikipedia is condoning anything that happened in the past. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous places where Russian was an official language and is no longer. In a perfect world I might agree. Unfortunately, I have seen the insistence on inclusion of Russian names used in numerous places on WP to push certain POVs regarding current affairs--as opposed to simply reflecting historical usage. Despite my defense of "Kiev" I'd likely be labeled pro-Ukrainian, if there is a persuasive case for "value added" providing Russian in the lead, I'd consider it. PētersV       TALK 15:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because some people have argued for something for the wrong reasons, that doesn't mean doing it is wrong. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hence my statement regarding making a case for the value added. While I thought it (editorially) appropriate to remove the Russian from the lead, that doesn't mean I'm closed to a good case for keeping it there. (Kievan Rus', for example, has three languages in the lead for historical reasons.) PētersV       TALK 18:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one, Lvov was changed to Lviv on Wikipedia. --98.227.38.196 (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes my point. L'viv is the BGN standard, there is no BGN conventional, L'vov is a variant. PētersV       TALK 03:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Then you should support the move from Odessa to Odesa, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Odessa#Requested_move --Andriy155 (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My small contribution.

First (as these seems to be relevant to other contributors) I am an Englishman who has worked throughout the former Soviet Union, presently living in Kyiv. I have no political axe to grind either for Russia or Ukraine.

We have on WP Beijing, Mumbai, etc. I cannot uderstand therefore why we have Kiev. The transliteration of the Ukrainian name of this Ukrainian city is Kyiv. This is used by English-language newspaprs in the city, by the Delegation of the European Commission, etc. It is the country's own preferred version of the city name in Latin script. Kiev is the transliteration of the city's name in a different language (Russian). It seems to me unreasonable and inconsistent to retain it as the article title. The argument of 'common usage' in these circumstances is highly debatable - and if it is highly debatable it canot per se be justified as 'common usage'. Where there is no clear open consensus - and I note the topic has been hotly debated - we should surely go the 'official' route, as WP has done with Mumbai etc.--Smerus (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A bit of research - a quick trawl shows that the British Embassy, the French Embassy and the American Embassy all use 'Kyiv'. Even Terry Wogan uses Kyiv, saying ‘only the chicken is Kiev’. I think one can argue a strong case now even on common usage and unless anyone can show me any good reason, I will take this once again to AfR.--Smerus (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all this work, Smerus. It's very interesting. However it should be made clear again that Wikipedia policy is to use the most widely-understood English name when referring to foreign places. Currently that is unquestionably Kiev. If it changes in the future then Wikipedia will change its usage.

While the British Embassy in Ukraine does use Kyiv, the rest of the British Government does not. See my contributions above for lists of major organizations that use Kiev. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Besides, governments and similar organisations tend to be overly PC in these matters, so they can hardly be considered bellwethers when it comes to what is common and what is not. Of course, once governments start using a particular name over another, that might lead to everyday people adapting the revised name as well. In the case of Kiev, however, it has simply not happened. Not yet.

As an aside, I'd bet money that a majority of the native English speakers who contributed to this long-running discussion did not even know that the city's name was supposed to have changed until the issue came up on Wikipedia! Jasepl (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Jasepl, this is highly NNPOV ('governments and similar organisations tend to be overly PC in these matters') and very dismissive of other contributors ('I'd bet money that a majority of the native English speakers who contributed to this long-running discussion did not even know that the city's name was supposed to have changed until the issue came up on Wikipedia!'). Crude condescension isn't the way to conduct a discussion. Just reread WP:AGF. If these are the best arguments you can address, then I suspect you don't have much of a case.

DJ Clayworth, if the argument is to use 'the most widely understood English name' (and I would be graeful for a clear reference where I can see and study such an established WP policy) , then how come we have 'Chennai'?. The BGN database gives Kyiv as 'standard' and 'Kiev' as 'conventional'. It also gives 'Chennai' as standard and 'Madras' as conventional. If 'Chennai', then 'Kyiv'. Please explain any reason why things should be otherwise.--Smerus (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Without wishing to be rude, if you haven't read the Wikipedia pages on naming conventions then you really should be thinking twice before contributing to this debate. For your information, the place name conventions are here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You may not wish,but you certainly succeed!--Smerus (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things. On Odessa/Odesa and BGN, there is conflicting data as the railway station is Odessa, the oblast containing the city is Odessa—this thread of conversation to be continued in the proper place.

   India place names supersede BGN standard/conventional (common English outside India) as "Indian" English is an official language of India, hence according to WP naming conventions, Mumbai trumps Bombay, Chennai trumps Madras. The name Київ has not changed, nor is English an official language of Ukraine, thus a different circumstances. Hope this clarifies. PētersV       TALK 16:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not directly relevant that English is an official language of India, nor that Mumbai is an official name (in English). It is the most widespread use that counts. Of course the fact that millions of English-speaking Indians call the city Mumbai helps to establish the widespread usage of Mumbai, but it's not a deciding factor. It's usage that counts. Mumbai is now so widely used I suspect many younger people don't even recognize the name Bombay. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Kiev=>Kyiv move by Christian Science Monitor: [1] Good job, guys!--Andriy155 (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Official city name

It caught my attention that a change of the official city name to Kyiv has been reverted back to Kiev. I realise that given the mood on this forum it is very unlikely that this article will unlikely move to Kyiv any time soon. However, since when is the official name of the city Kiev? Isn't it something that the Ukrainian authorities should be able to figure out on their own? See article 20 of the Ukrainian consitution: http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm in its official translation. Notice that this issue has nothing to do with the English usage of the word. I am curious, who has higher authority to determine official names of cities in Ukraine than the Ukrainian consitution? Furthmore, in the entry for Milan the official city name is Milano. Hence, we should either adopt Kyiv as the official city name or set Milan as the official city name for Milan. Otherwise, there is no consistency. Again, in this part I do not propose to moce the article to Kyiv but simply to correct the opfficial name in the template.--Andriy155 (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that Kyiv is not in India. Names for cities such as Bombay, Calcutta, and others (some, such as Kolkota, are mere spelling changes too) were quickly changed to there new names in most media to avoid offending Indians. The solution: Have Kyiv declare itsefl a city of India! Seriously, there is a double standard on this issue on WP, as Indian city articles are promptly renamed as soon as the new name is passed by the city government, well before common usage accepts the new names. Why should Kyiv be any different? - BilCat (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This decree you are referring to has been passed by the Ukrainian officials last century.--Andriy155 (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You neglect to note that there are few Great Pakastani chauvanists around to get in the way. Bandurist (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong arguments

It is spelled as Kyiv in English language because:

1) Ukrainian government insists on Kyiv spelling

2) The State Department of the U.S. issued a directive to write Kyiv

3) The Prime Minister of the U.K. calls the city Kyiv

4) United Nations Multilingual Terminology Database (the ultimate body on geographical names) approved it as Kyiv

5) Major English speaking governments worldwide switched to Kyiv spelling

6) CIA refers to the city as Kyiv

7) The name of the famous football club is Dynamo Kyiv

8) Many papers, e.g., British The Guardian, are already writing Kyiv

9) All major Canadian media already use the spelling of Kyiv

10) and many more reasons http://kyiv.of-cour.se/

(Markiyan (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia - look in the mirror ...

Dear Wikipedia!

We noticed something interesting today. When we ventured to ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev#City_name_evolution

... you very properly state, that:

“since the 1995 adoption of Kyiv by the Ukrainian government as a preferred spelling, the Ukrainianized version Kyiv is gaining usage”.

So, as you further state, it appears the name Kyiv is gaining usage by many notable entities, such as ...

“Ukrainian government, [...]

United Nations, all English-speaking foreign diplomatic missions, several international organizations, Encarta encyclopedia, and by some media, notably in Canada and Ukraine [...]

United States federal government, [...] Monopoly”

... EXCEPT you, Wikipedia, as we see in THE NAME of your article that describes the city of Kyiv.

Shame! Get it right - NOW, please ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv

... must be THE NAME of the article and ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev must redirect to the article ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv

Sincerely, Mumbai & Beijing

(as told to Hokej (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

lost cause :( --Andriy155 (talk) 08:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps lobby the BGN folk. WP follows convention, not creates convention. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Kyiv vs Kiev

The official name of the city, is Kyiv.... Ukrainians living in Ukraine as well as around the world make this common mistake since. Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament has made this decree... I feel that as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it should reflect the CORRECT information not information that has made us complacent.

thank you

http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm

--UkrNole 485 (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the official mouthpiece of the Rada. Only common English usage matters and the common English spelling of Kyiv is still Kiev. That is the guiding principle of Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

Well this is an instance again where b.s. editors are wrong. If a country has come out and said this is the way we want our english translations to slavic words it should be respected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.50.80 (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The official name of London is...London. However it appears in the Ukrainian Wikipedia as Лондон. Why? Because that's how Ukrainians spell it (just as the French spell it Londres, which is how it appears on French Wikipedia). The principle is no different with Kiev. English-speakers have always spelt it Kiev, just as they have always spelt Köln as Cologne and Venezia as Venice. It's a fact of life and no amount of bickering over name changes is going to make any difference. There is no earthly reason why English Wikipedia should be a special case - until every Wikipedia changes its spellings to the spellings in use in the country of origin I see no reason why English Wikipedia should be obliged to change spellings in long use in English-speaking countries just because a city happens to have changed its official name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I will add a short, but impressive list of facts of why it is spelled as Kyiv in English language:

1) Ukrainian government insists on Kyiv spelling

2) The State Department of the U.S. issued a directive to write Kyiv

3) The Prime Minister of the U.K. calls the city Kyiv - http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20199

4) United Nations Multilingual Terminology Database (the ultimate body on geographical names) approved it as Kyiv - http://unterm.un.org/dgaacs/unterm.nsf/WebView/B57BF6AB5F06749B85256DC700440AAD?OpenDocument

5) Major English speaking governments worldwide switched to Kyiv spelling

6) CIA refers to the city as Kyiv - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/up.html

7) The name of the famous football club is Dynamo Kyiv (recognised worldwide)

8) Many papers, e.g., British The Guardian, are already writing Kyiv

9) All major Canadian media already use the spelling of Kyiv

10) and many more reasons and references on http://kyiv.of-cour.se/

Let's initiate another discussion and make the final change. We have waited too long already. (Markiyan (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are all irrelevant to the discussion. Wikipedia is not the mouthpiece of any government or governmental agency. The only relevant facts are common English usage, not official English. And your number 10 is a link to a website from which you have copied this list verbatim without any further "reasons or references". It remains to be seen whether enough modern reliable sources are using "Kyiv" at this time to make the change. (Taivo (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

By the way, what is your relationship to the website at this address? (Taivo (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC))

(outdent) In case you haven't read it, here is the discussion and result the last time the issue was thoroughly discussed (Sep 2008): [2]. Before you continue on, you should familiarize yourself with the issues and not repeat them here. (Taivo (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Requested move October 2009

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus against move. Overwhelming and varied evidence provided that Kiev is currently the common English language name for the city.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Kiev → Kyiv — This issue has not been visited formally for a year (September 2008 as far as I recall). There is steady nationalistic pressure to change the title and a recent case of soliciting meat puppets was discovered. I don't really care one way or the other (I personally always use Kyiv outside Wikipedia), but simply want to gauge Wikipedia consensus (again). How common is the Kyiv spelling outside the government and official channels? How common is the Kiev spelling? Obviously anything written before 2004 or so is going to have Kiev, but how about during the past two or three years? Has there been a significant shift to Kyiv in non-governmental sources? Are English speakers shifting to Kyiv? Taivo (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Results of September 2008 Renaming Survey

This is the last time that the move issue was officially visited with a move request, discussion, and survey. The results of the survey were 11 Oppose, 1 Neutral, 2 Support. The arguments there almost entirely focused on three things: 1) Google hits, 2) Ukrainian official policy, and 3) Wikipedia's relation to governmental policies. There were no comprehensive surveys of English common usage at that time. (Taivo (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

Survey

I have, as promised, carefully replaced the survey results here that were added yesterday. (Taivo (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

• Neutral. I asked my questions above. While the data clearly point to "Kiev" as the most common English usage (at least in the U.S.), I am sitting out the survey. (Taivo (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
• Oppose per the reasoning provided in the last many previous renaming discussions, and the evidence provided below by the nominator showing that "Kiev" is the predominant form used. (as of the time of my signature) 70.29.209.91 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The evidence provided seems to indicate that Kiev is by far the more common name (not that it matters, the article on Myanmar is located at it's former name of Burma). TJ Spyke 22:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I cannot see any reason why transliteration of Ukrainian language should have precedence over English language spelling on English wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a plain case of common sense. This is the English wiki and common English names are to be used (even if they are English translations). This wiki is written in the English language and read by the English-speaking world. Original and/or native names should NOT be used "here". Flamarande (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose considering the data, it has to remain Kiev. Izzedine (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Is there enough data now? I have assembled mostly U.S. data and it strongly points to "Kiev" as the most common English spelling here. How about other English-speaking countries? The three or four news sources from the U.K. that we have also point to "Kiev". Are there other (non-governmental) sources that we need to be looking at? (Taivo (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
• Oppose as before. Kiev is the English name that English speakers recognize. Arguing for the Ukrainianised form is well and good, but Ukrainian isn't even the language of modern Kiev, so I don't understand why the Ukrainian form ought to have any authority. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per common English language usage at BGN database. When it changes, my vote changes. Personally I would like to see the rename, that is why I look to an unbiased source. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 18:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:NCGN would also consult the Library of Congress country study, and the New Cambridge Modern History, but even if they tilted the other way (and I don't expect it), the evidence below is robust. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Kiev remains the most common spelling in English. Thanks for the conclusive evidence of usage collected below. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Kiev seems outdated and conservative spelling of the city name. Please see reason provided by Christian Science Monitor for abolishing using Kiev and switching to Kyiv earlier this year here --Andriy155 (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Andriy155 means "Kiev seems outdated and conservative..." rather than "Kyiv...". (Taivo (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

Thanks! Fixed.--Andriy155 (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence collection: usage in English-language texts

I'd like to make a very strong suggestion in an attempt to get the most out of the following discussion - let's keep the discussion tightly focussed on reporting actual usage of each name in the English language.

All the arguments based on governmental decrees, transliteration systems, relative number of Ukranian/Russian speakers, the etymologies - we've heard it all before. These arguments are thoroughly documented in the previous discussions, and we don't need to waste time and kilobytes trawling through it all again - and most importantly none of these issues have changed since the previous discussions. The one thing which may have changed since the other discussions is actual usage in English-language texts, so if we focus on this we will use our time most productively.

I suggest collecting data from a wide-range sources that represent a selection of reliable English-language sources (i.e. not just crude Google counting, including any blog, raw data file and script-generated text that's been dumped on the net - see WP:NCGN#Search engine issues). With enough good-quality evidence, it will be far easier to come to a consensus on the strength of the case.

Please provide links for verification, and (if possible) an indication of the year the usage comes from. Knepflerle (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely concur and have removed the survey from the proposal for now. Once data have been assembled and we are ready, I'll repost the survey and we can gauge where consensus might (or might not) stand. (Taivo (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

It is a noble effort, you have spent a great deal of time on this, in the end, the article name will remain as is per my note at the bottom. If we are driven by a love for Kiev, then we should put our energies toward getting the article to GA or FA, not yet another debate on naming. (This should be moved to the Naming sub-page where this has all been discussed in painful detail before.) VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 17:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the futility of all naming debates here. Rather than moving every debate to the naming sub-page immediately after closure, perhaps we should leave the last debate in situ until the next one starts. That way it's easier to see for casual browsers who might want to engage in the next round. (Taivo (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

Data Demonstrating Common Usage

English-language newspapers and news websites

• LexisNexis, last five years in major US and world publications: Kiev 999 (highest number possible for software, which means total was higher), Kyiv 746 (Taivo (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

United States

Newspapers

• The New York Times, last five years: Kiev 485, Kyiv 1 ---Knepflerle (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Washington Post, since Aug 31, 2009: Kiev 4, Kyiv 0; since Jan 1, 2004: Kiev 394, Kyiv 12 (Taivo (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
• Los Angeles Times, since Sep 29, 2009: Kiev 22, Kyiv 1; since Jan 1, 2004: Kiev 300, Kyiv 2 (Taivo (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
• Christian Science Monitor, search 1980 to present (I can't see how to limit search by year): Kiev 601, the most recent being from Sep 30 of this year, Kyiv 25, the most recent being from Jun 29 of this year. (Taivo (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

However, as of May 2009 Christian Science Monitor switched to the spelling of Kyiv Kyiv or Kiev --Andriy155 (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wall Street Journal, Jan 1, 2004 to present: Kiev 266, Kyiv 2 (Taivo (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
• Chicago Tribune: Kiev 17 (from June 2002, latest Oct 1 of this year), Kyiv 1 (from Sept 20, 2007) (Taivo (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

News Magazines

• Newsweek, up to present (I didn't see how to constrain the dates usefully): Kiev 107, most recent on Oct 19 of this year, Kyiv 1, from Oct 11, 2004 (Taivo (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
• Time Magazine, Jan 2004 to present: Kiev 57, most recent in Sep 2009, Kyiv 2, most recent in Jun 2008 (Taivo (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
• Columbia International Affairs Online, Jan 2004 to present: Kiev 13, Kyiv 3 (Taivo (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
• CQ Weekly (CQ=Congressional Quarterly), from Jan 2004 to present: Search from here (searches do no have individual addresses) Kiev 3, Kyiv 0 (Taivo (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

Television News

• CNN, from October 2008 to present: Kiev 19, Kyiv 0 (Taivo (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
• MSNBC, all articles (no way to constrain results): Kiev 679, Kyiv 9 (Taivo (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
• Fox News Channel: Kiev 424 (most recent Oct 20 of this year), Kyiv 2 (most recent from April 5, 2008) (Taivo (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

Canada

• Globe and Mail, from a few years ago to present (site wasn't clear about extent of data base): Kiev 168 (most recent from Oct 24 of this year), Kyiv 30 (most recent from Oct 20 of this year) (Taivo (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
• National Post, from a few years ago to present (site wasn't clear about extent of data base): Kiev 43 (most recent from Oct 22 of this year), Kyiv 2 (most recent from Oct 13 of this year) (Taivo (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
• Toronto Star, from Jan 2004 to present: Kiev 366, Kyiv 394 (Taivo (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

United Kingdom

• The Guardian, Jan 2009 to present in World News-Ukraine: Kiev 56, Kyiv 1 (Taivo (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
• The Times, 1995-2009: Kiev 1,784, Kyiv 12. ---Knepflerle (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Financial Times, Jan 2004 to present: Kiev 1581, Kyiv 10 (Taivo (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
• The Economist, Jan 2004 to present: Kiev 110, Kyiv 4 (Taivo (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Australia

• Sydney Morning Herald, since 2007: Kiev 394, Kyiv 7. ---Knepflerle (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

• Irish Times, from 1996 to present (couldn't find a way to limit search): Kiev 1201 (most recent from Oct 21 of this year), Kyiv 10 (most recent from Feb 24 of this year) (Taivo (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

South Africa

• The Sunday Times (Johannesburg), from Jan 1, 2004 to present, in Archive: search engine form Kiev 80, Kyiv 0 (Taivo (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

Works of general reference: encyclopaedias, standard histories

• Encarta city page - Kyiv, country map - Kyiv ---Knepflerle (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC) (provided city page link), Londain (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (provided country map link)
• Columbia Encyclopedia - Kiev ---Knepflerle (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Britannica - Kiev ---Knepflerle (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Countries and Their Cultures, Vol. 4 by Ember & Ember - Kyiv (Taivo (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
• Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia - Kiev (Taivo (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC))

Academic use (journal papers/academic books with direct relevance to Ukraine)

• Journal of Slavic Military Studies, from Mar 1, 2004 to present: Kiev 22, Kyiv 2 (Taivo (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
• Journal of Slavic Linguistics, from Mar 1, 2003 to present: Kiev 2, Kyiv 1 (Taivo (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
• East European Politics and Societies, from Jan 2004 to present: Kiev 6, Kyiv 7 (Taivo (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
• Slavonic and East European Review, from 2001 to present: Kiev 4 (all written in English), Kyiv 3 (all written in Ukrainian, but showing up on English search in transliteration) (Taivo (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
• East European Quarterly, from Jan 2004 to present: Kiev 15, Kyiv 6 (Taivo (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
• Humanities International Complete (academic data base of books and journals in humanities), from Jan 2004 to present: Kiev 893, Kyiv 149 (Taivo (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
• SOCIndex (academic data base of books and journals in sociology), from Jan 2004 to present: Kiev 35, Kyiv 32 (Taivo (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
• Historical Atlases Online (academic data base of historical atlases): Kiev 9, Kyiv 0 (Taivo (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
• Global Road Warrior (business travel data base): Kiev 57, Kyiv 15; in addition, all their maps are labelled Kiev (Taivo (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
• OpenCRS ("Congressional Research Reports for the People"): Kiev 16, Kyiv 3 (Taivo (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
• ProQuest (academic data base of U.S. and Canadian Ph.D. dissertations), from 2004 to the present: Kiev 10, Kyiv 10 (Taivo (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

Although the identical numbers might lead one to think they were duplicate lists (with text such as "Kiev, or Kyiv" (or vice versa)), they are not duplicate lists. Most of the 10 titles in each list are unique to that list. It's just coincidence that they are exactly the same length. (Taivo (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

• Chronicle of Higher Education (uses an odd "intelligent" system of constraining searches so "Kiev" can be constrained for articles occurring within the last year but not within the last 3 years, but "Kyiv" can only be constrained for articles within the last 3 years): Kiev 2 (within the last year, both written by Americans), Kyiv 1 (within the last 3 years, from June 2008, written by a Ukrainian) (Taivo (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC))

This source is actually a news and opinion source, but it relates completely to academia, so it properly belongs here, I think. (Taivo (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC))

Major international organisations

• United Nations (un.org website): Kiev 407, Kyiv 171. ---Knepflerle (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Why international organizations? Are we to ignore major organizations of the English-speaking countries in this section?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:49, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

• Erm, because I hadn't thought of it. Now created below! Knepflerle (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• United Nations Multilingual Terminology Database : Kyiv Londain (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• UN map of Ukraine Kyiv Londain (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Major English-speaking organisations

• National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (enter "Kiev" into the search field here, scroll down the list of results to Ukraine): Kiev (given as BGN Conventional), Kyiv (given as BGN Standard), also seven other spellings listed as "variants").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:49, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
  • Note WP:NCGN#BGN: their "BGN Standard" is intended to be the systematic transliteration, not the common one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• National Geographic Society, search of entire website: Kiev 324, Kyiv 96 (Taivo (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
• Smithsonian Institution, search of entire website: Kiev 765, Kyiv 37 (Taivo (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
• Commonwealth of Nations: Kiev 3, Kyiv 2 (Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Other Relevant History/Geography Media

• The History Channel, search of entire website: Kiev 61, Kyiv 0 (Taivo (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC))
• Discovery Channel, search of entire website: Kiev 374, Kyiv 0 (Taivo (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Miscellaneous Relevant Numbers

• Google Books (I know this isn't exactly the perfect place for this, but it's not completely academic either), from Jan 2004 to present, English books only: Kiev 2560, Kyiv 810 (Taivo (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC))
• Google Scholar (from 2004, only in Business, Economics, Social Sciences, Arts, and Humanities): Kiev 7860, Kyiv 2240 (Taivo (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
• Google Directory city page - Kyiv --- Londain (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Google Directory province page - Kyiv --- Londain (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Data Demonstrating Official Governmental Policies

(This section was added later by a supporter to reflect official policy, not common usage. (Taivo (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)))

Governmental bodies in English-speaking countries. Also those of English-speaking countries acting in Ukraine.

• Australian Consulate in Ukraine : Kyiv Londain (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Canadian Consulate in Ukraine : Kyiv Londain (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Embassy of Republic of India in Ukraine : Kyiv Londain (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Honorary Consul of Ireland in Ukraine : Kyiv Londain (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• New Zealand Honorary Consul in Ukraine : Kyiv Londain (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• United Kingdom Embassy in Ukraine : Kyiv Londain (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Gordon Brown on Genocide in Ukraine : Kyiv Londain (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• U.S. Embassy in Ukraine : Kyiv Londain (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• CIA The World Factbook - Ukraine : Kyiv (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• The State Department of the U.S. and its directive on Kyiv : Kyiv (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

At this point, the evidence shows:

1) The news sources surveyed strongly favor "Kiev", in some cases by an overwhelming majority of instances. "Kyiv" is not always the most recent usage. One Canadian newspaper gives equal weight between "Kiev" and "Kyiv"

2) Encyclopedias have not been thoroughly surveyed. The four listed are split between "Kiev" and "Kyiv".

3) The academic sources surveyed generally favor "Kiev" with a few split between "Kiev" and "Kyiv". The academic sources tend to have a low number of hits to compare.

4) International organizations have not been widely surveyed. The one source favors "Kiev".

4.a) If you are talking about UN - officially they recognise it as Kyiv. Links were added.

4.b) Major English-speaking governments and their embassies were consulted - they all use Kyiv. --- Londain (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

5) The two American scientific organizations favor "Kiev". The other two organizations listed do not really favor either.

6) The two American educational channels overwhelmingly favor "Kiev".

7) The data from Google Books strongly favor "Kiev".

So as of Friday morning, 30 October (Mountain Daylight Time), that's where we stand on gathering sources and examining the usage data. (Taivo (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

I have suggested in the past we simply use BGN as the impartial third party. As long as they have an entry in their database specifically stating there is a special case that "Kiev" is standard English usage, we should observe that. When that changes, we rename the article, plain and simple. Anything else will degenerate into the usual. I've been occupied elsewhere, I see my suggestion for doing Kiev justice to go GA or FA lies completely fallow—if a tenth of the energy were spent on article content that has been wasted on Kiev vs. Kyiv, we'd have something we could all truly point to with pride. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 17:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with BGN is that it coesn't have a conventional field as often as it really should; for example, it doesn't have one for Frankfurt. When it does have one, we should follow it - unless ambiguity makes that impractical. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're not quite correct, Frankfurt am Main (BGN Standard) indicates Frankfurt as the (Short) version, hence no requirement for a conventional common English usage exception. (And Frankfurt is also BGN Standard for the other Frankfurt.)  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Including Short forms would be a different proposal. I suspect it will still diverge from normal English usage for such places as Brixen, and that it will give multiple answers quite often; but we don't need to decide such things here; try WT:NCGN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Reading Wikipedia policy (below) and considering the assembled data, the following points point unambiguously toward Kiev as the common English spelling of Ukraine's capital:

• BGN Conventional is "Kiev" indicating common English usage
• The major news sources in several English-speaking countries overwhelmingly use "Kiev" over "Kyiv"
• Academic sources generally use "Kiev" over "Kyiv"
• The web sites for four major American scientific, geographical, and educational organizations use "Kiev" over 90% of the time
• Both Google Books and Google Scholar register "Kiev" over "Kyiv" at more than a 3:1 ratio.

(Taivo (talk) 04:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

We already knew that official policy of most countries doing business in Ukraine is to favor "Kyiv" in official documents. That has been documented ad infinitem before. What is new here is the definitive data demonstrating that common English usage is "Kiev". (Taivo (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

Relevant Wikipedia Policy

For those who may not be thoroughly familiar with relevant Wikipedia policy in this issue (and who may not like to click on links), these are the relevant points (from WP:NCGN):

From General Guidelines: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it."

From Use English: "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This will often be identical in form to the local name (as with Paris or Berlin), but in many cases it will differ (Germany rather than Deutschland, Rome rather than Roma, Hanover rather than Hannover, Meissen rather than Meißen). If a native name is more often used in English sources than a corresponding traditional English name, then use the native name. An example is Livorno, which is now known more widely under its native name than under the traditional English name "Leghorn"."

From Widely Accepted Name: "A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following methods (not listed in any particular order) may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name (period will be the modern era for current names; the relevant historical period for historical names):

1. Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name.
   • One reason for 1993 is to ensure that post-Cold War changes in usage are duly reflected; other (especially later) limiting dates may be appropriate in some parts of the world.
2. Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inappropriate pages from the count. If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted.
   • Always look at search results, don't just count them. For more, see the section on search engines below.
3. Consult other standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question. (We recommend the Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies, and the Oxford dictionaries relevant to the period and country involved). If they agree, the name is widely accepted. The possibility that some standard histories will be dated, or written by a non-native speaker of English, should be allowed for.
4. Consult major news sources, either individually, or by using Lexis-Nexis, if accessible. If they agree in using a given name, it is widely accepted."

From BGN: "The United States Board on Geographic Names determines official Federal nomenclature for the United States. Most often, actual American usage follows it, even in such points as the omission of apostrophes, as in St. Marys River. However, if colloquial usage does differ, we should prefer actual American to the official name. Similarly, its GEOnet server normally presents local official usage in the country concerned (for example, Frankfurt am Main); in a handful of cases, like Florence, it has a conventional name field. Its BGN Standard is a systematic transliteration, as Moskva — Wikipedia prefers Moscow. Where it acknowledges a conventional name, it is evidence of widespread English usage; where it does not, it is not addressing our primary question."

(Taivo (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC))

General Guidelines require only acceptance not the overwhelming usage.

A bit of history: I recall changes like Beijing did not happen overnight. It took Chinese some 10 years to convince the West about it. Mumbai went a bit faster as British did not want to bother with their colonial past.

We have already moved all post-Soviet names on Wikipedia: Kishenev is now Chişinău, Alma-Ata is now Almaty... Kiev just stands as an odd example giving some room to revert the above changes. Why give the others another case to revert the other changes? Using the same logic as we used in those geographical names it should be Kyiv instead of Kiev. Any other reasons not to?

As time will pass Kyiv will be catching up, now the real question comes as: do we at Wikipedia recognise it as the modern spelling, as accepted one, or as the one that it overwhelmingly used over the web (it is difficult to count elsewhere, who is counting? haven't seen anyone so far.) --- Londain (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerning "acceptance" versus "usage", if the occurrence of "Kiev" and "Kyiv" were fairly evenly matched (or even close), then that would be a good argument that neither is common and that "Kyiv" was accepted. In other words, it would lean the argument in the direction of "Kyiv". However, we're not dealing with two spellings that are even close. In some of these sources (where "Kyiv" occurs at all), there is as much as a 150:1 ratio of "Kiev" to "Kyiv" (the Financial Times). There is not a single public source where "Kyiv" dominates over "Kiev". At most, the two spellings are equal in a small number of sources. (Taivo (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

There is an error in Londain's statement, however. Not "all post-Soviet names" have been moved on Wikipedia. Odessa is still Odessa, not Ukrainian "Odesa". One of the reasons for this is that the official Odessa city website [3] spells its name in English "Odessa", despite the official position of the government of Ukraine, but the other (stronger) reason is the same as that being used here--common English usage uses "Odessa" overwhelmingly. The majority of English speakers know only four cities in Ukraine (in descending order of knowledge): Kiev, Odessa, Yalta, and Sevastopol (the latter two are only familiar to those who read any history). Yalta and Sevastopol are spelled the same in Ukrainian and Russian. Only Kiev and Odessa are spelled differently. Until English speakers adapt to "Kyiv" (even Odessans don't want to change the spelling of their city), then we must use "Kiev" here. (Taivo (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

I agree that in time the change to Kyiv will happen, but Wikipedia is bound by the present, not the future. We are a descriptive encyclopedia, not a prescriptive one. Neither Kishenev nor Alma-Ata are referred to with any regularity in English sources. Neither are Uzhhorod nor Dnipropetrovsk. They are rarely encountered in English so "common usage" is not relevant to them. Compare this, however, with Bangkok, which is not its name in Thai, and Rome, which is not its name in Italian. And what about Moscow in the post-Soviet world? Why not "Moskva" (or "Warszawa" instead of Warsaw)? Indeed, if we want local names, then Dnepropetrovsk is the way that the inhabitants (who nearly all speak Russian) want their city known, not the Ukrainian Dnipropetrovsk. In the end, all we have is common English usage. We must not get caught up in WP:OTHERSTUFF. That is never a strong argument when it comes to deciding individual issues in Wikipedia. We don't tell people how things should be, but simply report how they are. (Taivo (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

I must give credit where it is due; I strongly applaud Taivo's argumentation above. I love the: "Compare this, however, with Bangkok, which is not its name in Thai, and Rome, which is not its name in Italian. And what about Moscow in the post-Soviet world? Why not "Moskva" (or "Warszawa" instead of Warsaw)?" -part in particular. However I would improve the first sentence: "I agree that in time the change to Kyiv might happen." Flamarande (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Relevant Notes

User:Londain has been banned because he/she turned out to be a second account for banned User:Markiyan. The contributions of such second accounts are often deleted based on the reasoning that a banned user should not be editing under a new name. These secondary contributions are usually not productive. However, in this case, I'm not inclined to personally delete Londain's contributions for two reasons. First, they represent a minority point of view, and second, they are not inflammatory or otherwise uncivil. If you feel otherwise, then feel free to act accordingly. (Taivo (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC))

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Are you for Ukraine as the democratic independent state VS for the Ukraine as a Russia's collonial province

One more reason (rather political than linguistic).

Are you for Ukraine as the democratic independent European state VS for the Ukraine as an Russia's collonial province?

Do you want to see Ukrainians as citizens with the European mentality VS you want to see Ukrainians as soldiers in the Russian Army?

Are you for Kyiv VS for Kiev?

Naming the Kyiv as the Kyiv will support Ukraine on its struggle for democracy, independence and European values.

Naming the Kyiv as the Kiev will help to return Ukraine into the Russia's colony.

--Perohanych (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The only relevant issue in Wikipedia is common English usage. It has nothing to do with our feelings about Ukraine. Only common English usage is relevant. (Taivo (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not in the business of being correct. Common English usage is the policy, whether or not it is based upon correct data. It is not a political "diss" at Ukraine or Kyiv/Kiev.Srilm (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)