Talk:Kyiv

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Talk:Kiev/Naming issue Archive01 (2003-2004)
• Talk:Kiev/Naming issue Archive02 (January-August 2005)
• Archive03 (non-naming discussions finished by mid-2005)
• Talk:Kiev/Naming issue Archive04 (August-December 2005)

Modern City

Is there any chance someone could provide some information about the modern city, rather than its name or history? --Henrygb 23:19, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll have a go at creating some kind of starting point. I've not lived in Kiev for 10 years now, but I've been back enough to see some changes occur. I'll post it here before we decide to move it into the Kiev page. -- mno 6 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

I've started writing this section. Everyone's welcome to comment and contribute. Until it's more-so complete or at least in a decent shape, I have placed it here: User_talk:Mno/Kiev_Today. -- mno July 8, 2005 13:42 (UTC)

I've made some progress on Modern Kiev and would like to ask everyone to add their changes and comments. Kiev Today. -- mno 17:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Kharkivskyi neighborhood

Hi all. I've created a short article for the Kharvkivskyi neighborhood (under Kharkivskyy because that was the link on the Kiev page). I think it should be called Kharkivskyi, though, not Kharkivskyy. I didn't think about doing the change before I published the article, so maybe someone can please re-link the pages properly? Thanks! -- mno July 6, 2005 15:58 (UTC)

Attractions rearrangement

Presently, the article contains quite a few photos of Kyiv attractions. The photos are a bit scattered and this does not look good. Could anyone try to arrange the photos in nice looking tables, for instance, as it is done in Hawaii. Thanks in advance. Sashazlv 7 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)

Kiev Coat of Arms at the time of Imperial Russia

This image should be removed as someone's modern fantasy. As best I know, the current coat of arms is exactly the same as was used during Catherine the Great's reign. It is featured in Catherine's Gerbovnik as part of coats of arms of different noble families descended from Rurik, e.g., Baryatinsky, Volkonsky, Repnin, etc. --Ghirlandajo 7 July 2005 08:19 (UTC)

Feel free to modify if you are sure the CoA is wrong and see whether anyone will claim you're wrong. I won't. As for the history of this image, I got it from ( http://www.heraldry.com.ua/index.php3?lang=E&context=info&id=476#verh ). Maybe they didn't know what they were writing about. --Irpen July 7, 2005 17:12 (UTC)

Updated lilacs photo

I've updated the photo of the Kiev Botanical Gardens with a photo taken by R. Lezhoev. I have gotten in touch with him and asked his permission to upload the photo on Wikipedia. He agreed, assuming he is credited on the page where the photo is shown. The caption right now is a bit long, I'll leave it up to someone to change as they see fit. Getting rid of the note about Vydubychi would probably work. -- mno July 7, 2005 14:23 (UTC)

For those interested to compare the old and the new:

• Old photo: Image:Kiev BotanicalGardens lilacs.jpg (taken approx. 1994)
• New photo: Image:Kiev-BotanicalGarden-1280.jpg (taken 2003)

You can see how much the city changed (grew) from the amount of buildings in the background. Quit amazing. -- mno July 7, 2005 14:25 (UTC)

Livoberezhnyi district

I was just wondering after looking at the metro maps. The station Livoberezhna (meaning left shore or left bank) is located on the right bank of the river (geographically). A future possible metro extension (line 5), is also to be called Livoberezhna while it is located on the rigth bank geogrpahically. It seems the geographically right bank is called the left bank. Am I correct? I think we should add a small note about this somewhere on the Kiev page. -- mno July 7, 2005 16:56 (UTC)

It's the left bank as the river flows; i.e., on your left as you sit in a boat going downstream. —Michael Z. 2005-07-7 17:07 Z

Ah, makes sense. Thanks! -- mno July 7, 2005 17:08 (UTC)

Map of Formal Districts

I've created three versions of the map of distrcits:

• Image:Kiev DistrictMap Ukrainian.png - in Ukrainian
• Image:Kiev DistrictMap English.png - in English
• Image:Kiev DistrictMap Numbers.png - numbered

Feel free to use whichever one. I've added the Ukrainian version to the Districts section of the article.

-- mno 21:55, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hi everybody. Regarding that map: unfortunately, it doesn't reflect the river - which is rather important for understanding the city's subdivision. Would somebody "split" it following the respective raion limits line? Ukrained 19:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Kiev Photos / Pictures

I've contributed a few of the photos to Kiev article in the past. Most of my selections were based on key attractions. I see even more additions of Kiev photos in the Modern Kiev section. I believe that these are ALL GREAT PHOTOS! And I'm sure there are even more. I would love to have a separate section of Kiev Photos which would feature the key attractions. Those could be updated as better photos of the same places turn up...

My proposal - create a separate page on Wikipedia : Kiev/Album or Kiev/Photos which would be entirely dedicated to all pics.

On the main article page include one or two photos per related section and a link to the newly created album page where more photos can be viewed.

What do you guys think? -asmadeus 18:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Aaaah... just figured out that there is also tons of Kiev Photos on Wikimedia Commons -asmadeus 18:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Article Quality and Reorganization

I thought about a list what must be done to make Kiev a perfect article. Feel free to add or modify. Sashazlv 04:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Make the lead section shorter. Especially, the paragraph with history. Possibly have 3 paragraphs there, but not more. (I already shortened the history in the lead couple of days ago. Do you think still shorter needed? -Irpen)

Yes, please, try to cut out all inessential detail (like Muskovy, later Russian empire, -- just Russian empire is enough). I think, for the lead, history paragraph is too long. Instead, if possible try to give a sentence or two about major tourist attractions. Plus Eurovision and Orange revolution - for PR reasons - most people are much more interested in recent events than history.

OK, I will try to rewrite the lead as per your suggestion. --Irpen 03:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I am somewhat concerned that Kiev article, as a whole, is improperly structured. For instance, universities are under attractions. That's nonsense. Other important/useful info is missing: e.g., where most government building are, where to look for embassies, where to go shopping. There is no discussion of the economy of Kiev. Sashazlv 08:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

While I mostly agree here, we need to avoid ovedoing it. Embassies, for sure, belong to Wikitravel -Irpen 03:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Also, peers suggest reading articles on other cities as examples. See Wikipedia:Peer_review/Kiev. Sashazlv 08:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Will do. --Irpen 03:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

1. Squeeze the into tab.
2. Rearrange pictures into galleries. The way it is done in Hawaii article may be a good example.
3. Redraw the picture with formal districts, Kiev DistrictMap Ukrainian.png into English names
4. Put district names into table.
5. Add section on transportation and consider other possible sections as in New York City article.
6. Make a separate article on the history of Kyiv and summarize history in the main article.

On 1. I agree, I just expanded a lead a little bit, but what I think is that the 2nd para from the lead may actually become a basis for an entire history section and the current history can be indeed spun-off to a separate History of Kiev article. You are correct in everything else here too. This is so much better than Kiev/Kyiv/Kijow wars! Regards, --Irpen 04:14, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

History of Kiev is now a separate article, initially pasted from here. Please go there and help improving it, add pictures, etc. The plan is to have both at FA level. --Irpen 07:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The current history section is based upon old "quick-history" in the lead. Please remember that History of Kiev is now a separate article and most of editing on history related matters should be there!

The even briefer history outline for the current lead is new. Please help with images arrangement at this page.

Since there is an ongoing drive to make both this and History of Kiev articles featured, please use extra care. Editing is welcome (this is wiki afterall), but please avoid careless "throwing in some thoughts" into the text. Also, a reminder, for Kiev/Kyiv/other disputes, archives reflect some thorough discussion. Before returning to this, read what was said before. Thanks to all! --Irpen 20:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

When I drew the maps of Kiev, I made 3 versions:

Media:Kiev DistrictMap Ukrainian.png

Media:Kiev DistrictMap English.png

Media:Kiev DistrictMap Numbers.png

I can also provide a version without any headings. -- mno 18:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I substituted the second of these for the existing one in the article. Is it possible to slightly color up the map? Say, Obolon in light blue, Pechersk in light green, etc. If that's overly time consuming - no problem, the current version should work fine. Thanks. Sashazlv 05:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I originally had drawn it in different colors, but that looked very ... colourful? ... to me so I changed it to plain. I don't have the coloured version anymore, but I can make it quite easily again. I will upload it in the next few days. -- mno 14:25, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I much prefer the way you guys have done the images now. I found it annoying having to scroll through them all before. -- mno 14:25, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

New Images

The new images look great, but we've lost their logical ordering. Sashazlv 05:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Why is it under Khazar towns | History of Russia categories? Ilya K 17:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Summary of older discussions over names in the articles

For those who are too lazy to read older discussions here is a quick summary. Polish names probably exist for every city of Ukraine. There are three ways how they can apply.

1. For some cities, their Polish name is so important that it may be found in English texts even nowadays (Lviv/Lwow/Lvov/Lemberg). For such cities it needs to be placed in the very first line of the article, except perhaps when the article has a name etymology piece close to the top where similar names are listed and explained (current solution at Kamianets-Podilskyi). In such articles all names except native are given within etymology discussion.
2. For some cities, while much of the Polish history still applies to them, they are never, or almost never, called nowadays by their Polish names in English language texts. Examples are Kiev/Kyiv/Kijow, Chernihiv/Chernigov/Czernihow, Kaniv/Kanev/Kaniow, etc. Polish name should be used for such cities in the history sections (like Voivodship name) but not in the first line, because otherwise (like for Kiev) any name of any country that ever conquered it (Lithuanian, German, Crimean Tatarian, Swedish, whatever was the Khazar language, Cuman, etc.) deserves the place in the first line. Similarly, Варшава, Белосток, Краков, at times conquered and controlled by Russia, by this token would need to be mentioned in the first lines of the respective articles (and I know some of our Polish friends will not take it lightly). This would be clutter and/or bad blood. We have a separate list article called Names of European cities in different languages for this information.
3. Finally, for some cities in Ukraine (Sevastopol, Kramatorsk) Polish name is totally irrelevant.

The same rule of thumb applies to Russian names. However unfortunate it may seem for some, many Ukrainian cities are mentioned in English by their Russian names occasionally even today (Kharkiv/Battle of Kharkov, Chornobyl/Chernobyl accident), etc. So, there are more Russian names than Polish ones in the first lines. I hope I captured everything. Do read archives, if interested. --Irpen 17:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Good as long as we're all clear on this. -Iopq 23:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This was an implied consensus. However, it was never voted or formally approved, unlike Gdansk/Danzig dispute. If most agree on this, I could set up a page for up and down vote on this proposal so that edits in violation of consensus (if reached) could be reverted on sight similar to Gdansk/Danzig vote results. Any objections to trying to run such a survey? --Irpen 03:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and of course we need to establish in advance the criteria of establishing sufficient English usage. I propose the following:

1. check other respected encyclopedia such as Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Americana, Microsoft Encarta. What names they mention early on?

   The only issue I'd like to raise about using other encyclopedias is if we do so extensively (and as I've seen, many articles source other encyclopedias as source), it almost becomes pointless to write the article in the first place. Why not just say "Read Brtiannica"? And further, doesn't it become a copyright issue, also? -- mno 01:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

2. Check the current media usage. Search engines are LexisNexis, Google News, maybe others...
3. An good old google test but only among English language web-pages.

Does the list seem objective and unbiased? --Irpen 03:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I can see how this would apply to article titles, but can we extend it to include the secondary names too?

I would add that the default titles for Ukrainian place names on Wikipedia have generally been spelt using the simplified National transliteration system (see Romanization of Ukrainian). Notable exceptions are the well-known names Kiev, Odessa, Dnieper, but not Kharkiv, Lviv. —Michael Z. 2005-10-11 15:52 Z

PS: let's not create any templates of domination. —Michael Z. 2005-10-11 21:04 Z

I am also against domination templates. To Michael's question on how this would apply not only to article's titles but also the secondary names, my view is the following. First of all, primary names (titles) are more or less settled now. Except of Kiev, Odessa, some cities of Crimea (as well as the name Crimea itself), Dnieper, Southern Bug (maybe there are a couple of more examples but I can't think of any off hand) the Ukrainian name is primary and the article is entitled by its transliterated version. This is already determined via the criteria listed above by looking for the most common English usage and finding that for the places of UA, except those listed above, the most common usage name coinsides with the transliterated Ukrainian name. In a similar way, we can determine an existence of the usage for the secondary name. EB article for Kharkiv is called Kharkiv, but introduces Kharkov in the first line. EB article on Lviv introduces Russian, Polish and German names, EB's Chernivtsi introduces Romanian, Russian and German. I am not saying we should just copy Britannica. If we find via methodes 2 and 3 that other names (Czernihów) are used in modern English we will also add them to the first line.

Let me repeat that the issue here is not the usage of the names in the article in appropriate context Czernihów Voivodship but what names should be mentioned in the first line. I want to settle the issue not because I want to remove some particular names, but because settling this would help consistency, reduce clutter (explained in the beginning of this section) and put an end to a very popular type of edit wars over this. So, any objections to putting this proposal up for a vote? I will then set a separate page for this. Thanks! --Irpen 04:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is one more related question. Which name should be used in the text. Should it be the title of the article, excluding probably some historial names like Kijow Voivodship?--AndriyK 11:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that here are three issues: what name to use for the article's title (settled earlier practically for all Ukrainian places), the name(s) to mention in the first line and the name to use within the articles. We are not deciding the latter issue right now, but a rule of thumb is to use the name that is used in modern English L. history books that write about that particular period. This tradition is broader than WP. Check for instance WW2 books terminology. However, this discussion for now is only about the names to be listed in the first line as alternative names. --Irpen 02:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading old discussions and it seems the trend is to beginning to emerge to write it as Kyiv. More new webpages on google write it as Kyiv. But since so many old webpages remain, it will take a long time before Kyiv becomes the most popular google spelling. Compared to 2003, the ratio between Kyiv and Kiev has shrunk considerably. Even in a few months that I spend looking it seems Kyiv gained on Kiev. We should begin thinking about when we plan to rename the article to Kyiv. -Iopq 10:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What we are discussiong right now are the rules of the game not the particular name. When Kyiv prevails in English L usage, we will move the article. What matters much more than google test, is the major media test as well as other online reference sources, like Britannica and Oxford. I proposed Kharkov->Kharkiv and Lugansk->Luhansk myself as you can see if you read the earlier discussions. Let's just all agree on the general rules first and discuss the applications for particular cities separately. --Irpen 16:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Remember: Wikipedia:Use English. What about use inside article? Let me add a comment based on personal experience: there are new Polish names waiting for English/Russian/Ukrainian versions in the Dymitriads article. I find it useful to keep Polish names in the article (after first instance of use, following English of course), since they are useful when one wants to research some stuff in Polish (many of my articles are based on transltion from Polish and I find it mighty useful to have Polish name mentioned in the articles). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not about the use inside of the articles as I said above. This is only about the first line. Besides, we have a great list of Names of European cities in different languages. Use inside the articles is a separate issue. --Irpen 04:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

At the present time, Kiev is the name the Beeb uses, for whatever that's worth [1]. Shimmin 17:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

When did Kiev fall to the Mongols ? 1238 ? 1239 ? or 1240 December 6 ?

The Kiev page says 1238, Mongol invasion of Rus says "After many days of siege, the horde stormed Kiev in December 1239.", and Danylo of Halych and Voivode Dmytro show the date as 1240 December 6. I suspect the Mongols started the attack in 1238 and took 2 years to capture Kiev. Can someone familiar with topic confirm the dates and fix this, please ? -- PFHLai 19:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the specific official date is, but there are some indications that the horrible destruction of Kiev attributed to the Mongol "hordes" were actually committed several years earlier by the neighbouring principalities. Maybe that is the source of the confusion? The year of destruction of Kiev vs. the year when the Mongols sieged it?--NightOnEarth 20:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Any respectable sources that support these "some indications"? To me this sounds like a novel thought in historiography, but of course I am just a Wikipedian and not a historian by profession (though I did read history books). To see the mainstream account, you may start from Britannica, certainly not the best History book, but certainly as mainstream as one can possibly get. A quote from there:

In 1238 a Mongol army under Batu, grandson of Genghis Khan, invaded Rus and, having sacked the towns of central Rus, in 1240 besieged and stormed Kiev. Much of the city was destroyed and most of its population killed. The Franciscan friar and traveler Giovanni da Pian del Carpini six years later reported only 200 houses surviving in Kiev.

--Irpen 20:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I was looking for historic events for the Selected Anniversaries section on MainPage for December 6. If the date of the Fall of Kiev cannot be easily confirmed, I suppose I shouldn't post it on MainPage. Thanks. -- PFHLai 08:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Transportation section needs serious improvement

There are some false and/or ambiguous issues there:

• The only major train station?
• partial collapse of transit system?
• buses including trams???

Somebody fix, or move the whole section here - temporarily. Ukrained 18:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It needs improvement by I don't think it is that bad as to be totally removed from the article to talk. We can improve gradually within the article itslelf. On the side note, the practical collapse of the transit system in the nineties did occur. Also, the suburban transportation including the ran-down buses and the famous Soviet Elektrichkas is totally missing. --Irpen 19:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well there is the Kiev Metro article (I am currentely negotiating with several people for right of images, hopefully I can begin filling out the station details soon). http://www.parovoz.com/ is a good site for information on rail transit. -- Kuban kazak 19:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I lack time, English and special rail terms, not factual info:) I just live here in this transportation system... I think we should closely work with WP-en trains and buses artilces&categories to harvest gizmo words and classification. Ukrained 19:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Structure of the article

IMHO, the existing structure of the sections is poorly readable and priority-missing. So I suggest the following plan of contents:

1. Geography...
2. History
3. Legal status...
4. Subdivisions
5. Modern Kiev (shouldn't we split&develop it to Economy, Architecture, Social, Culture etc.?)
6. Transportation
7. Economy (non-existing so far)
8. Universities
9. Kiev or Kyiv

...

Please modify this structure below with your opinion. To my mind, we should analyze the experience of other megacities/capitals on WP.

I also suggest to establish the structure pattern for all big cities of Ukraine, based on the experience of Kiev. See the discussion here. Ukrained 13:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Ukrained 20:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Seens like copyrights-free photos of Kiev

Hi everybody. In case if anyone interested, I came across the UNIAN Kyivv photogallery that seems to be free for using. Would somebody take a look,investigate the possibilities and start using them? As for me, I don't know how to handle WP images yet. P.S. Merry Orthodox Christmas for everybody! Ukrained 20:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The image at the bottom of the site claims a copyright to UNIAN but the Ukrainian law allows certain exceptions as elaborated in template:PD-UA-exempt.

An excellent source of images from Ukraine is the cite http://sk.vlasenko.org whose author allows the usage of his images in WP under GFDL provided we aknowledge his authorship similar how it is done at Image:Pochaev.jpg. --Irpen 20:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Even though the law may allow certain exceptions, I'm not quite sure that those exceptions apply to the UNIAN images. I would suggest emailing them and clarifying what and how (and if) we can use. I can do that, I have done that a few times. mno 13:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

More Kiev Kyiv

Use English in all. We've had this debate as it relates to the names of Irish towns. Irish Gaeilge just doesn't work no matter how many Irish speakers the town has.

I just left a message for a user at Commons that: while I supported his change of the article to Kyiv (Commons is an interlingual resource), I felt insulted by his assertion that "Kiev" was an American spelling. After checking with Australian, British and Canadian news outlets, all major English speaking nations use the spelling "Kiev". In fact, there's a fascinating article about it here from Canadian Broadcasting Company]. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 22:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Please keep in mind that Kyiv is an alternate English spelling, and not merely a Ukrainian transliteration or a neologism. It is still used by some English-language media in English-speaking countries, is has been used in English-language publications since at least a couple of decades in my experience, and is an alternate headword referring to Kiev in my Canadian Oxford Dictionary —Michael Z. 2006-02-06 23:24 Z

What I don't understand is if most Kievans actually use Russian instead of Ukrainian, why would we want to reject the English form? Is it just because the Ukrainian government promotes the Ukrainian language? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Kiev is a Russophone city and strictly the Russian would be Kiyev. So Kiev is a long-established English spelling like Moscow and Warsaw. --Kuban Cossack 00:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

So why, if the city is Russophone and there is an established English-spelling, is there any movement to call it by the Ukrainian name? I mean, if the Ukrainian executive government decided to actually reflect the de facto status of Russian in its various regions and changed its spelling of the city to Kiyev, would we have to move the article again? Seems like a silly argument. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well what goes in the minds of certain Ukrainian government officials I would not take kindly to explain on this talk page and that's the main argument of Ukrainization. Of course suppose Russian becomes also a state language (which is quite possible given the recent SMS referendum and the opinion polls showing support for Parties that do currentely exhibit Russian as second official language), it will not change anything since Kiev is still the most widespread spelling in the world. --Kuban Cossack 01:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, this debate takes more than half of all the article's related discussion and archives. Please see the message on top of this page about checking the archives first. Should we start a subwage of this talk on the issue? Like Talk:Kiev/naming issue. Or maybe someone would write an article English spelling of the capital of Ukraine whose talk will be used for all this? This is all discussed and settled for now. Let's discuss other article's improvements. --Irpen 01:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I am a new person at Wickipedia, made first edits a few days ago. My interest here for now is confined to Ukraine. Having read a good deal of various parts of the Kyiv vs Kiev debate here, I do not agree with those supporting the spelling "Kiev", and to that effect, I also do not agree in the slightest with what appears to be the current Wickipedia policy for resolving such issues (i.e., using "the prevailing usage form of a word in English"). There are strong reasons why I think this is not a sensible policy, and there are even stronger arguments for using Kyiv and not Kiev; but for now I am not going to go into that. My question now is procedural: to help save my time searching through all the rules and guides of Wickipedia, can someone please tell me what is the formal procedure that one would have to follow to change the spelling of "Kiev" to "Kyiv"? Your answer is much appreciated. Please note that I've seen the mentioning of some poll that was carried out here, and comments saying that the issue "is closed for now". My question is exactly about how to re-open this issue, conduct a new poll preceded by a new debate etc etc - a mechanism that can, procedurally, lead to this change.

Thank you,

Serhiy 12:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Serhiy. As you probably already understood by now, "Kiev" spelling is used per Wikipedia's "use English" guideline. If you are really serious in your desire to have it amended, a good starting point for you will be Wikipedia:How to create policy, which should take care of most of your procedural questions. You may also review the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which will provide additional information as to why the things are the way they are. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 17:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ezhiki, thank you. I don't think much of the current WP policy on this issue, but I do appreciate your reference to some info on how to change it. In fact, my concern is perhaps even less with the policy per se, but just with the application of that policy - how do you actually know that "Kiev", and not "Kyiv", is the most commonly used word? (But then even if it is, the change in policy would come first to the agenda). By the way, some further discussion on this has started to form at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Serhiy#Kiev.2FKyiv, where I also expand a bit more my view on some of the reasons for the change. Serhiy 17:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the English spelling is "Kyiv" - per the Ukraine government. The UN and other international diplomatic organizations have already accepted the change. Eventually it will filter down to places like Wikipedia. They're a little resistant to change here. Though I suppose that is inevitable when someone is done by committee. --SpinyNorman 16:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian government has no authority over the English language. It has an authority of the UA-gov organizations, who follow its order and use Kyiv in the documents they issue. It also has a right to ask other governments to follow, which most do. Neither of those determine the English usage and the media is the best indicator of the latter. Once (and if) it makes it to the mainstream media, both EB and WP would change the name. --Irpen 21:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Ukraine government do have the authority to decide the proper spelling for the names of their cities - in whatever language they see fit. The idea that popular ignorance and intellectual laziness should be the determining factor in issues like this is absurd. --SpinyNorman 05:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that spelling it "Kiev" is dumb? Until the Ukrainian government is a world superpower, most of the world won't care what it suggests. I've always known of the city as Kiev, now whether my children learn it as Kyiv is not for me to decide. 203.218.135.24 17:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Not "dumb", just ignorant. Superpower or not, the Ukraine government have made their position on the correct spelling of the city's name abundantly clear. Sadly, there are a few people here at wikipedia who, in their arrogance, prefer their ignorance to fact. --SpinyNorman 06:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would in fact say that no government on earth has authority over any language. Language is governed by usage. So all one can say is that the official English spelling of the name as sanctioned by the Ukrainian government is <Kyiv>. However, it is not even the only official spelling, as the US State Department uses <Kiev> (see [2]), and the British Foreign Office uses both spellings, with <Kiev> in the first place (see [3]). For an English-language encyclopedia, the usage inside the English-speaking countries has to have priority. --Daniel Bunčić 09:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Language is NOT governed by usage. If that were the case, there would be no point of something like a dictionary. The US State Department's decision to not respect the Ukraine government's wishes has nothing to do with the actual spelling of Kyiv. The fact remains that the Ukraine government has to right to decide how the names of their cities are spelled. There is no "official" spelling outside the Ukraine government. --SpinyNorman 03:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In a modern world, what you look up in an orthographic dictionary is how the educated majority writes. If there is no clear majority, you find variants: For example, the 1993 edition of Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary on my bookshelf gives three spellings for boatswain (<boatswain>, <bos'n> and <bosun>), two for codeine (<codeine> and <codein>), two for the past form of to duel (<duelled> and <dueled>) etc. In its appendix "Nations of the World", however, you find only the following two spellings of Kiev: <Kiev> and <Kiyev>, the latter marked as "Russian". That is, at that time <Kyiv> was not usual.

Of course the Ukrainian government has the right to decide on spelling, and it can make government authorities use these spellings, and there have also been several attempts in history to force citizens to use a certain form of language by means of a law that punishes misuse (e.g. the use of foreign words or of a forbidden language). A government can also refuse to sign treaties with other countries if these treaties contradict the government's language policy. But a government has no legitimate power whatsoever over citizens of other countries. And most English speakers are not citizens of Ukraine.

--Daniel Bunčić 06:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Clearly the Ukraine government has no enforcement authority over how people spell the name of their cities. All they can do is establish the correct spelling. If some people in the world prefer ignorance and arrogance, that's their business. Of course, it doesn't make them right. --SpinyNorman 06:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What is 'right', then? This seems to be a rather pre-democratic understanding of what a norm is: Correct is what the government says? No, for me there are higher authorities in linguistic issues than governments. I respect democratically elected governments, but they have been elected for making politics, not for meddling in the way I speak and write and for telling me what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. Linguistic norms are made by the people who speak and write (in a very complicated way, see Rudi Keller, On language change, London 1994, ISBN 0-415-07672-2), and we pay dictionary makers (by buying their dictionaries) for finding out what can be considered 'right' and what 'wrong'. --Daniel Bunčić 08:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Be serious for a second. If the Ukraine government decided that it didn't like the whole idea of "silent letters" in English words and banned them, people would just laugh and ignore them. They have no authority over that aspect of the language. They do, however, have the authority to decide how the name of a Ukraine city is spelled. That's one of the things governments do. Just because people are too lazy or stupid to respect a change, that doesn't make the change invalid. here's a better question, why do we call the country "Sri Lanka" instead of Ceylon? Go ahead... type "Ceylon" or "Bombay" or "Siam", etc. ad nauseum into wikipedia and see what happens. You get redirected to the new spelling yet many some people still use the old spelling - quite a few people in the case of "Bombay". --SpinyNorman 18:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That's just what I'm trying to say: Names are a part of language! See Exonym and endonym on how that works.
Or let's make a test: Let's elect governments who will claim that in Ukrainian, Köln (in fact English Cologne, which the German government should prohibit!) has to be spelled Кöлн, not Кельн, that New York has to be spelled Ну Йорк, not Нью-Йорк, and that both Washington and Washington, D.C. have to be written Уошінґтен, not Вашингтон or Вашинґтон. You know what the Ukrainians would tell our governments? "That's none of your business!" And they would be right. --Daniel Bunčić 06:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The Exonym and endonym article explicitly mentions the controversial aspect of usign exonyms, expressly mentioning Côte d'Ivoire and Ankara.
It seems very clear that the spelling of Kyiv in English is and will remain controversial, repeatedly bringing the article up for debate. Other articles, like the aforementioned Côte d'Ivoire and Ankara, as well as Mumbai, Ceylon and others, deal with the controversy respectfully by allowing the place name to be spelled as the sovereign city/state spells it itself.--tufkaa 20:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The cases of Bombay/Mumbai and Ceylon/Sri Lanka have nothing to do with exonyms. The city was officially renamed on 4 May 1995, and the state was proclaimed as Sri Lanka in 1972 (after being a British colony under the name of Ceylon). Ankara is just the common name for the city, I have never heard any other (except in texts about classical times). As to Côte d'Ivoire, I have never really understood this. In German, everyone continues to call that country Elfenbeinküste, just as we say Kiew. --Daniel Bunčić 21:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

So is it your belief that renaming a city/state overrules the power to apply an exonym? How does that work? What are the boundaries as they pertain to renaming? For instance, was not Kyiv renamed when Киев stopped being an official name of the city?--tufkaa 22:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No, and that's the point. K__v was NOT renamed. Renamed was Stalingrad (Volgograd), Dnepropetrovsk (Yekaterinoslav) and Luhansk (Voroshilovhrad). Kiev was never renamed. It has walays been Київ in Ukrainian, Киев in Russian, Kiew in German and Kijow in Polish. Switching from one version of the same name to another doesn't create any renaming. We are choosing not between the old and the new name of the same city but between several English versions of the same name. There is no English version of the city name in the Russian language, there is no English version in Ukrainian language (the versions in these languages are in Cyrillic). None of these versions (Kiev/Kyiv) are "incorrect". They are both correct. We are deciding which one to use in Wikipedia based on prevailing usage and sometimes a secondary usage, if in certain context the current usage still differs from the prevailing one.

Examples of the latter case is Chernihiv. Both the media search and other encyclopedia search confirms that Chernihiv is prevailing usage and the article is called as such. OTOH, the majority of even modern texts devoted to the Kievan Rus times use Chernigov (see for instance this new book published as late as in 2003: *Martin Dimnik, The Dynasty of Chernigov, 1146-1246, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521824427. So, the articles are Chernihiv city, but Oleg of Chernigov. Similarly Lviv but Lwow Uprising, etc. As far as Kiev is concerned there is no context in which Kyiv currently prevails in the English language literature, so even that would not apply.

Our naming convention WP:NC(UE) says: "Use the most commonly used English version of the name as you would find in other encyclopedias". That's pretty much sums it up. Nothing helps determine the most common usage like the major media and to this day it is Kiev. When the city (or the country) really gets renamed, that is more likely to affect the media usage, the major encyclopedias (Britannica, Columbia) would soon follow and Wikipedia should as well. If K__v is renamed, god forbid, to anything else, be it "Ukrayins'k", "Russkiy Gorod" or "Granica Polska" that would have been a different story. If, OTOH, the major media and other encyclopedias switch the usage to Kyiv with time, we will do so in no time. For now, restrict your arguing to the usage analysis and not to what name is "right". They both are right. --Irpen 23:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Even More Kiev Kyiv

Hi! Do we realy need writing and pronounciation of Kiev in Russian at the begining of the article - "Russian: Ки́ев, Kiyev"? It's not official language neither in Ukraine nor in Kiev city. --Oleksandr, 22 July 2006

We do this for many Ukrainian cities. Some even list the city's name in Polish, German, Hungarian, or Hebrew. That way people can scan the header to see if the article is about the city they are thinking about, no matter what the current name is.--tufkaa 14:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to take photos

Hello. I am living in Kyiv now and I am willing to take photos (Metros, streets, buildings, statues... whatever) but would like to know what is most needed. Is there a list that I missed and if not can we come up with one? Thanks. Greg.ory 16:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Publish them on Commons, Metro is desperately needed. Please register so that you have a talk page and I tell you details of what is required.--Kuban kazak 16:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've registered (as Greg.ory) what do I need to do for you to be able to post on my talk page? Greg.ory 16:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing, just wait for me to post now...:)-Kuban kazak 17:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Kyiv sound-bite

The Ukrainian one, not the Russian one. It's barely intelligible, at least to my ears. It seems truncated and somewhat muffled. Maybe someone would like to re-record it and upload a better and improved version. Peter1968 14:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes please, its difficult to make sense of the Kiev/Kyiv issue without knowing how the latter ought to sound. People tend to forget that simple convenience of pronunciation in the "host" language is an important issue in toponymy. Sumergocognito 07:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Kyiv appear on the internet

Recently surfing inernet i was surprised of numerous sites to use Kyiv. Here are some examples

• www.timeanddate.com
• Oracle and TopCoder during new user registration
• The Weather Underground, Inc.

Ilya K 10:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

When I saw this post, I started surfing, and got thousands of hits for Kiyev. And that doesn't have the Ukrainian government and other Ukrainian nationalist institutions badgering English-speaking news organizations to adopt it! - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you proving that Kiyev is not an official spelling? I believe that the ongoing situation is that there was an official name change several years ago that Wikipedia refuses to recognize, contrary to other official name changes (Bombay, Ivory Coast, Siam, etc...). Not recognizing the name that a sovereign person/place/people call themselves is not only incredibly disrespectful, but will also result in a neverending string of inquiries and edits from those who know better. For instance, Serhiy's post a little higher up.--tufkaa 15:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The right of non-English speaking governments to prescribe the forms and vocabulary of the English language is doubtful, even more doubtful when the city of Kiev itself has two native names, a Russian and Ukrainian form. It would be POV to choose one over the other, especially as the actual English name is so dominant. I notice Ukrainian nationalists don't seem to care so much about Kiev's name on the wikipedias of other languages. Why is that? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The only factor or at least the major factor is prevailing Modern English usage. The latter is simplest to derive from surveying the MAJOR media, thus exlcuding small news outlets that don't have a consistent editiorial policy or editorial staff to proofread and enforce it and check other major encyclopedia. As per prevailing English usage I pushed moving Kharkov to Kharkiv, Lugansk to Luhansk, etc. For the very same reason, Kiev should not be moved, at least for now. Encyclopedia don't set the trends in English, they simply reflect them. If anyone is interested in the Major media survey, I can provide you with the data. I have access to restricted news search engines, like Lexis Nexis, that unlike Google news, that checks on everything, allows to search exclusively through the international major papers. Also, check Britannica.

To remind, this superfactor (prevailing media usage) is only relevant for choosing the article title! In context usage inside article is a different matter. If the context for non-prevailing modern usage in the literature is established differently from the modern name, by all means use it. For instance, Kijow Voivodship, Battle of Kharkov or Lwow University. However, there is no historical context in the Western English language media where Kyiv is traditionally used, while even Kijow is used on rare occasion. This may be sad to some, but Wikipedia is the wrong place to address it, if you see it a problem. Encyclopedias reflect the usage rather than establish or promotes it.

I summarized the difference between the choice of the article title and the context usage here. Now, Serhiy, please help us write articles rather than fight over terms. You work in adding content to Wikipedia would be very much appreciated. Please check the Ukraine portal for things you can do. --Irpen 16:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the internet is full of nationalistic Ukrainian websites, as well as those few news organizations who slavishly and ignorantly caved into the demands and arguments of the Ukrainian government, Kiev crushes Kyiv by a larger margin (4 times in fact) than Kyiv beats Kiyev. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no question that the internet spells Kyiv in a variety of ways. However, this does not change the name of the city. The city was renamed Kyiv by the sovereign government, much the name changes of Bombay, Ivory Coast, Siam, Leningrad, etc... While it may be referred to personally in a variety of ways, the largest web-based encyclopedic resource at the moment treats Kyiv in a manner inconsistent with other name changes, barring the day that an internet search comes up with more hits for Kyiv. Needless to say, such a policy will continuously bring about users such as Serhiy (you noticed I spelled his name as he spells it, not as most people on the internet would spell it).--tufkaa 18:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Tufkaa, unlike Leningrad and Ivory Coast, the city was NOT renamed. It has always been Київ in Ukrainian, Киев in Russian, Kijow in Polish, Kiew in German. It has been called differently at various times in English and the oldest recorded English spelling of this name (Kiovia) was probably Polish based. Ukrainian gov in 1991 did not rename the city but simply required the Ukrainian governmental organization to use Kyiv in the English documents they issue. In fact, this is the only issue over which it has any authority, except actually they could, perhaps, rename the city to, say, Kravchukiv (kidding). They can order the governmental organizations to use Kyiv but they have no authority over the English language in general, in fact no one has. There is no unique answer to the question of which of Kiev/Kyiv/Kijow is "correct". In fact they all are. The question is which name of the three (or more) correct names should we use for the article's title. Our naming convention WP:UE is clear on that:

If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works.

We go check the usage using the media and we go check other encyclopedia.[4] That gives the answer: Kiev. Not because it is Russian based but because it is the most commonly used English name as of today. --Irpen 05:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interestingly Mumbai was not mentioned in your response. :)

Also, the parallel with Côte d'Ivoire is striking. In that particular case, since it passed a law in 1985, the sovereign government requests that the name not be translated from French, and Wikipedia complies. I therefore see a discriminatory naming policy, and I am relatively sure that I'm not the only one who sees this.

Frankly, the only reason that we refer to Saint Petersburg or Thailand by their current names is because of international recognition of their respective naming conventions. Why can't we do the same with the capital of Ukraine?--tufkaa 18:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Because this is not the most commonly used English name. International recognition is an important step towards the name gaining usage. If and when it gains usage and beats Kiev, we will rename an article. Côte d'Ivoire prevails the Ivory Coast in the modern media usage. Kyiv doesn't. The reason, perhaps, is that the major European city is simply more a widely used term than the name of the small African country (that is discriminatory but it is so). As such, the name of the city got so widely known that the Anglophones are reluctant to switch and the media reflects that.

This whole issue puts us, the Ukrainians, in an unfavorable light and making us a laughing stock. Munichers don't scream to rename a WP article to München. Neither do Muscovites, about the renaming the article to Moskva. Note also, the many in Russia perceive the term Muscovy and Muscovite as Russophobic, still no mess. The Polish capital's article is Warsaw and not Warszawa, Prague and not Praha, etc. The article titles are based by prevailing English usage. How and why this usage became prevailing is a secondary issue and may be worth an article on its own. I, for a long time, proposed an article Name of the capital of Ukraine, whose talk page will, hopefully, be a single place for all these debates rather than a multitude of pages now.

Kiev is a single most widely used name of the city in English as of now and is used in other encyclopedias. No matter why, this settles the issue. As for why, by all means write an article on that. --Irpen 19:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason is there are more documents published in the last 100 years than in the last 10 years. -Iopq 23:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the reason is, it is the most widely used name in currently published texts in English as well. Check the media. In any case, wait for it to change before arguing and, in the meanwhile, help improve the article if there are other aspects in Kiev of interest to you rather than the obsession with de-Russification. --Irpen 17:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Popular ignorance is not a valid factor to determine usage. The fact remains that the Ukrainian government has changed the name of the city. Wikipedia can either accurate reflect this change - as it has for other place names like Bombay or it can give in to popular ignorance and remain a laughing-stock. --SpinyNorman 04:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Laughing stock are the countries who try to influence the English language as opposed to dealing with their internal problems (which in case of Ukraine, there are a few). Take Fifa world cup, and the football side on networks such as BBC is Ivory Coast, in yesterday's match against Saudi Arabia, all of the commentators reffered to the Ukrainian capital as Ki-jev. Which version is used? Judge it for yourself. --Kuban Cossack 11:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian Journal. Kiev, Kyiv or simple thoughts on Ukrainian affairs by nonpartisan

I've' just learned new Ukrainian word 'екшн', thought for a second and then realized, because it referred to a movie, must be borrowed from english action. Apparently russians got ahead on this one by loan word 'акшн'. Ukrainian version didn't want to be sound anywhere close like it was reborroewd from russian. Good for them. I think it should be more ukrainian words in english language. Words which doesn't sound anything like russian, something like cherevichky would be a perfect example or may be Nimechina instead of Germany. Sounds much better then Kyiv. Imprevu 19:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's 'экшн' in Russia, which is pronounced in precisely the same way as Ukrainian 'екшн'. Both are the closest you can get to the phonetic transcription of 'action' using Cyrillic alphabet. int19h 22:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Rearrange pix

could someone please rearrange the galleries into logical groupings? (example: Cathedrals and churches gallery, Buildings gallery, Monumentsallery) or something similar? WoodElf 06:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Correct me if I am mistaken, but shouldn't we include Kiev into the Category:Holy cities as Kiev is listed here? —dima ^/sb.tk/ 00:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but under Eastern Orthodox, not Ethiopian holy cities.--Riurik 21:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Demographics Table

Historical population

Year	Pop.	±%
1979	2,144,000	—
N/A	1989	—
2,595,000	+21.0%	—
2001	2,611,327	—
+0.6%	2005	—
2,660,401	+1.8%	—

I made up the table of demographics, but could not figure out a way to cite within the table. So instead, I inserted a temporary sentence in the section's 1st paragraph. If you can fix it please do.--Riurik 21:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried also, and could not do it in a reasonable way: It'll work if we place the <ref></ref> on the pop. numbers like so.

The histpop template doesn't allow for a citation. I think the table has to be remade from scratch (not too hard, using the template as a prototype), or the template must be modified to allow this. I can do this, but I won't have time for two or three days. —Michael Z. 2006-07-29 06:48 Z

Climate table

I made a new table based on the found here. It took some time recalculating mm > inches, etc, and changing the color codes, but in the end it looks good. Numbers/calculations were double checked, and the table seems to be accurate and ready for everyone's scrutiny.--Riurik 18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Destruction in WWII

I have replaced

In World War II, the city was destroyed again, almost completely

with

In World War II, the city again suffered significant damage

This occurs in two places in the article.

While it is true that there was widespread destruction and some parts of the city were almost totally destroyed, overall, the destruction was not nearly as extensive as, say, in Warsaw. As anyone living in Kiev would confirm, there are many pre-war buildings in the city that still exist.