Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places)

Districts (raions) of Donetsk city

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine

What's the convention for naming districts of cities in Ukraine? If one takes a look at the category Category:Raions of Donetsk, one sees "Kiev Raion" or "Kirov Raion", and the like. This strikes me as odd. All sources I've seen refer to these as Kyivsky district, Kirovsky district, &c. I especially think it is odd to use "Kiev", given that this particular district has no common name, meaning that the standard Ukrainian transliteration should apply. How exactly is this laid out? RGloucester — ☎ 04:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Does no one have any ideas about this? It is still confusing for me. As a rule, I prefer translations when appropriate, i.e. "district" over "raion", and the like. However, as I know most fellows here are opposed to that, I won't try and push for that again. However, I think that maybe an exception should be made for raions of cities, as opposed to usual raions. It is somewhat confusing to refer these raions of cities as "raions", and it is not at all common in English. Perhaps raions of cities should be called "so and so" district? That's much better than "Kiev Raion, Donetsk", which doesn't appear to be common anywhere. RGloucester — ☎ 22:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This project used to name district articles (not just city districts, but regular districts as well) using the transliterations of their Ukrainian spellings, but that changed at some point (I'm not sure there ever was a discussion, but I didn't pay attention that close, so I could have missed it). Now all the districts are named either after their administrative centers (resulting sometimes in different titles for the articles about the districts whose names in Ukrainian are identical) or, as is the case with the city districts, the proper part is simply translated (resulting in such odd constructs as "Factory Raion"). Not sure what's up with that. As you noted, hardly any Ukrainian districts (raions) would have a well-established common name in English, meaning that transliterating the original name is the only sensible thing to do in the vast majority (if not in all) of cases. As for the use of "raion" instead of "district", both are English words (albeit the former is a somewhat obscure loanword), so either is acceptable, as long as the usage is consistent.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 29, 2015; 13:11 (UTC)

Well, would anyone be up for reverting to the "Ukrainian transliteration" system? The absurdity of "Factory Raion" makes it clear that this simply isn't how these districts are referred to in English. I'm all for translation, when it makes sense, but this is instance where it simply does not. If the translations are not commonly used in sources, they should be thrown out. I'd recommend the following: use Ukrainian transliterations + district for raions of cities. Leave regular raions alone. That will make the distinction clearer, in English, and aligns more with how sources describe these entities. RGloucester — ☎ 14:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@DDima: As you created many of the district articles, what do you think about this matter? RGloucester — ☎ 19:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester and Ezhiki: The original goal of having the naming convention of "administrative center" + "raion" was to remove the long "skyi" endings on district articles, making it easier for English speakers to understand what a "raion" is in its relationship to their administrative centers. Since we already had articles like Donetsk Oblast instead of DonetskA Oblast, then the same format was to be applied to raions. (If I'm not mistaken, it was proposed by MapLover in 2008, who himself is no longer participating on Wikipedia).

This system works great for the general Ukrainian raions since each one of them has an administrative center on which we can base the name. However, city raions do not give us such a luxury, so a hybrid mix was created by Aleksandr Grigoryev. I was never one in favor of naming articles such as Factory Raion as I find it quite odd myself. I believe his reasoning was in favor of Wikipedia:Use English. I myself prefer the Ukrainian variant of Zavodskyi Raion (but that isn't consistent with the standard of not having the -skyi endings—then again, that can be dropped for city raions as proposed by you above).

I agree that if outside readers are looking up about yet another separatist attack on Donetsk's "Zavodskyi Raion," then they might be somewhat bewildered by this hybrid mix. As long as the naming convention is all standardized, uniform, and consistent—it doesn't make much of a difference for me. § DDima 20:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so that's why city raion names end up looking odd. Well, as I said, I'd advocate leaving regular raions alone, as their names make sense. However, city rations, I believe, should use "skyi" ending + "district". This is in line with how sources describe them, more reasonable, and allows and easy differentiation between the two. RGloucester — ☎ 20:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

<*ec*>Well, the difference between the oblasts and raions is that the former tend to have established English names (so their names need not be transliterated), while the latter normally don't (so transliteration is the most reasonable option—any other approach would pretty much amount to original research). It's the same with the names of obscure localities—they hardly ever have established names in English and are normally referred to by a transliterated Ukrainian name. You would not, for example, rename the Nyzhnohirskyi article Lower Mountains just to get rid of the "-skyi" ending, would you? :) WP:UE itself states to "follow English-language usage", not to "use only English words". For obscure place names and lower-level divisions, it is an established practice in English to use romanized local names; that's the whole reason why BGN/PCGN romanization exists.

Anyway, since I don't edit articles about Ukraine much, I'm only here in an advisory capacity. I'm sure you'll folks figure this out :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 29, 2015; 20:46 (UTC)

Yea, I thought raion is already a well established term as there are a lot of articles, particularly, concerning Ukraine that have its districts named as raions. I kind of favor the use of district over raion though. When I joined the project, there already were a lot of articles named as raions rather than district. The city district names were based on convention used for Kiev. I case of Kiev, if the name of raion derived from a name of locality such as former village or town (Amur and Nizhnodniprovsk are former settlements) that were incorporated into the city, such name was not translated into English, otherwise raions such as Industrialnyi or Korabelnyi would be translated. I believe there was a discussion in regards of the -skyi ending use in names. We decided to get rid of the ending. Also, please, note that when the Ukraine's territory was occupied by the Western Powers such as Nazi Germany, they used the same system without endings of -skyi. RGloucester, your argument about differentiating raions sounds strange. We need to stick to one convention no matter if it is a city ration or a regular raion. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

We need to do what is done by RS, and RS use "skyi + district" for city raions. I can understand the justification for "administrative centre + raion" for regular raions, as explained by DDima, but there is no such justification for the bizarre translation/transliterations of city raions that are not found in sources. I think the separation is perfectly reasonable. City districts are commonly called "districts" in English, whereas "district" sounds odd to the English ear when referring to regular raions, as they are more like what we call counties. Regardless, all that I know is that the present system for city raions is not supported by RS. RGloucester — ☎ 20:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If we are revising this subject about raions, what are you thoughts on raions that carry names such as Chervonozavodskyi or Tsentralnomiskyi? I think I already created an article or two named as City Center Raion (instead of Tsentralnomiskyi). What are your thoughts on that? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, your argument about "RS" (whatever that means) also strange. As I mentioned before Ukraine was occupied by Nazi Germany which did not use ending of -skyi in naming their "reichsgebits" and "teilbezirks". Also, coming back to differentiating raions and districts, is it not infringing on original research by doing that? Just asking. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that these districts do not have a common English name, meaning that they should be left as transliterations. A translation can be given in the article, but I don't think the title should be translated, unless we can find RS that refer to them as such. I don't think the Reich is relevant here. It isn't OR if RS maintain that distinction. RGloucester — ☎ 21:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think you are missing my point here, but I will cooperate no matter what the convention would be. Also, what about all the historical administrative divisions like voivodeships and governorates? Are we going to change them as well? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Why would we? RGloucester — ☎ 21:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

In Russian Kiev Governorate is called Kievskaya guberniya, Kiev County is called Kievskiy uyezd (or Kyivskyi povit in Ukrainian). Or we are taking even earlier period, there was a Halytska zemlia as part of the Ruthenian Voivodeship (Ruske wojewodstwo). Also, about your statement that districts sound odd to the English ear. Have you checked the articles on administrative divisions of France? Are those names not an odd sound to the English ear? Just asking. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a good example, Halicz Land, instead of zemlia halicka. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That's very different, because it is a historical region discussed in sources with that name. There are no "districts" of France. We call them "arrondissements". As you are most likely aware, a large part of English vocabulary comes from French, and so we have no problem with French loan words. "District" can in theory be translated as "arrondissements", but that's not usually done. "Quartier" in French is more like what in English we call a "district". The word "district" also exists in French. Regardless, these comparisons don't make any sense. They have no relevance. The only thing that matters is how these units are described by RS. I can tell you that "Factory Raion" is not a common way of referring to anything. RGloucester — ☎ 21:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, RGloucester, what about the city districts of Kiev? We will have to redo them. By the way I found an encyclopedic support for your argument. Here is an article on Kharkiv at the Encyclopedia of Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we'd have to redo all the city districts, but that shouldn't be that hard. RGloucester — ☎ 21:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, if there are no objections, I'd like to start working on this. RGloucester — ☎ 04:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no objections. Perhaps it is be better to differentiate between city raions and regular raions as such (not to mention that they have a different legal standing and are on different levels of administrative subdivisions). If that's what we're rolling with amidst consensus, I'll help move all this stuff and fix all the broken links and such. § DDima 17:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I'll start to work on Category:Raions of cities in Ukraine in a bit. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, I think it might be worthwhile to write up a guideline on Ukrainian places, so that the scheme is clear. RGloucester — ☎ 18:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I've made a draft: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places). Let's move this discussion there, and sort this out nice and simple. RGloucester — ☎ 19:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

thanks for creating the draft. May be a related question then: I often see Oblasts and Raions used with articles (the Donetsk Oblast, the Olevsk Raion). When I see it, I remove "the". Is this actually correct? Should we add this detail to the manual?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

In English, we'd never say "the Donetsk Oblast". We might say "the region of Donetsk", or "the oblast of Donetsk", but never "the Donetsk Oblast". RGloucester — ☎ 21:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not the answer I got from a professional linguist a few (well, quite a few) years ago :) According to him, either variant is acceptable (although he leaned towards not using the article as well, stating that using it sounds somewhat parochial to his ear), as long as the usage is consistent. Based on that recommendation, I've been removing the definite article ever since... The only exception he could think of was "the Jewish Autonomous Oblast".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 30, 2015; 21:56 (UTC)

It sounds more than parochial, to me. It sounds plain odd. I agree with him on the exception, though. RGloucester — ☎ 22:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It might be also good to discuss disambiiguation rules since we started the discussion anyway. What is now current practice is different from what is here and als from what we use for Russia. (I do not have any opinion for which system would be better but since I edit articlers on administrative divisions it would be good to fix smth).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I only transcribed what I saw in practice. What did I get wrong? RGloucester — ☎ 21:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

For instance, we have Romaniv (urban-type settlement), which was renamed from Romaniv (UTS).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems usage is mixed. Either way, I'd definitely not recommend that form of disambiguation. It is much less comprehensible, and gives the reader less information. There is also the possibility of having two uts of the same name. RGloucester — ☎ 22:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am also not a fan of it, but I prefer not to determine any policies for Ukrainian articles for many reasons. I would go with any policy provided it is consistent.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I said before, if no one objects, I'd like to start working on city raions. Does any have any suggestions for the best way to start implementing the above proposal? Should I just go ahead and start moving stuff? RGloucester — ☎ 22:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I've done Category:Raions of Donetsk. Before I do anymore, I'd like someone to check out what've done and see if it was correct, or if anything needs fixing. RGloucester — ☎ 23:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What about eastern cities of Ukraine with Russian names such as Sevastopol that has Gagarin Raion. Does it need to changed to Haharinskyi District?? And what about Krasnohvardiyskyi District, Tsentralnomiskyi District or Chervonozavodskyi District? Is that normal? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

About Romaniv issue, in the Ukrainian language it could be a last name, therefore in the Ukrainian Wikipedia it was differentiated that way. Romaniv should automatically go to the urban-type settlement, while for people with such last name one should look for Romaniv (name). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as Crimea is concerned, I think we should leave whatever is already there alone. We don't want to spark a PoV war for control of Crimea-related articles. RGloucester — ☎ 17:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your copy-paste-move and have done it properly. In the future, please move and not copy and paste.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think one should never use transliterations if there is an established English language equivalent. Let's use "district" rather than "raion" and "region" rather than "oblast". If there is no equivalent, one should use transliterations, but there are certain rules for them. For example, something "Haharinsky" would probably be wrong transliteration. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Long-standing consensus

This article violates the long-standing consensus that has prevailed in Ukraine for years to list both Russian and Ukrainian names. Since only a couple of editors have participated in this discussion, it cannot be considered a Wikipedia consensus that overrides the previous consensus until more editors have agreed with it. --Taivo (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It does not say not to list both Russian and Ukrainian names. It is referring to article titles. This was discussed at WP:WikiProject Ukraine and developed collaboratively. Matters of article content, i.e. the infobox, are not part of naming conventions. RGloucester — ☎ 04:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If it only applies to article titles, then I have no problem with it. It was referenced by another editor as applying to content. If it does not apply to content, then my edit was in error. --Taivo (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, it only applies to article titles. If an editor is citing this with regard to article content, he is doing so incorrectly. The "naming conventions" series of information pages only refer to article naming. RGloucester — ☎ 03:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Kyiv/Kiev

@Iryna Harpy: I removed the bullet about Kyiv/Kiev because a user was using it to justify mass-changing Kyiv to Kiev, which I don't believe has any consensus and is contrary to MOS:VAR (see User talk:Joe Roe). What are you referring to when you say "default WP:CON by reason of being long, long standing content"? If you mean this page, it was only created three years ago, does not seem to have been widely discussed, and is rarely cited by other editors.

Information pages like this should describe existing consensus, not dictate it. Where is the consensus? – Joe (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The only problem I see with the paragraph you deleted is that it points to 'Kiev' as being a transliteration from the Russian. Why it entered the English language in the form it takes is WP:OFFTOPIC... and is not actually demonstrable. The English language form has existed for centuries: it possibly came from the Russian, but why is it relevant after so long? The short of it is that 'Kiev' remains the dominant WP:COMMONNAME by a long shot. Arguments for change belong on the Talk:Kiev/naming discussion page because that is, ultimately, where consensus absolutely and unquestionably lies. Please read through that talk page (and its archives) carefully. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not disputing that Kiev is the most common spelling or suggesting that Kiev be moved. The discussions at Talk:Kiev/naming are a local consensus about the title of that article and don't represent a consensus that alternative spellings can't be used anywhere on Wikipedia. Compare for example Beijing and thousands of uses of Peking.

And again, pages like this should describe existing consensus, not decide it. If you can't show me that the directive "write Kiev, which is a transliteration derived from the Russian name of the city, and not Kyiv" has been discussed and agreed by the community somewhere, it should not be on this page. – Joe (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Kyiv certainly can be used elsewhere for example in FC Dynamo Kyiv, but the local consensus is that indeed Kiev, and not Kyiv, is the English name of the city. (No opinion on whether this should be in the article).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Joe Roe Is continuing to edit-war without waiting for consensus. In fact, they are going against the long-standing consensus directly to the contrary. AusLondonder (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You really need to learn what edit war means, AusLondonder. I opened a discussion. Ymblanter expressed some agreement with me, and Iryna didn't reply for a while. So I attempted a compromise. – Joe (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that edit, AusLondonder, but can we all please avoid casting aspersions and try to assume good faith. I don't think it's a point worth getting stuck on, but there certainly was no consensus for change. In fact, in all honesty, trying to modify the content of a 'how to' page after it has been clearly reverted with no consensus being formed for any rewording is certainly leaning towards the 'flying under the radar' end of the spectrum given the [usual] lack of traffic here. I certainly have a lot on my plate IRL, hence my having missed the continuation of the discussion process. Joe Roe, I also think that you've misinterpreted Ymblanter's comment which was in reference to a more generalised usage of proper names (which would also include Kyiv Post, for example) as opposed to geographical nomenclature. I'm on the fence about introducing such content, but it may be useful to include a hatnote pointing to WP:UKROM for these issues(?)

Again, my only query is whether the 'Russian transliteration of the name' is necessary as it serves as bait for attracting nationalistic attention which is off-topic and not properly established (the article on Kiev uses a reference for the usage as being from Russian c. 1800, but I'd invoke WP:WINARS as a reference for this article). I know that avoiding relevant content because some people won't like it isn't an excuse for salient information being omitted, but it's not particularly salient. When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, however, I'm really not fussed as to whether it stays or goes... and I'm not going to get picky and tag it for reliable sourcing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I really don't want to get hung up on procedural points, Iryna Harpy, but I don't like your implication that I'm somehow trying to "stealth edit". We all have other things to do – that's why I tend to wait a week or so for replies to a discussion before attempting any WP:BOLD edits. Note that I didn't restore my earlier edit, I tried something that I thought would be a compromise, with an edit summary clearly indicating it as such. I don't know how much more transparent I could be. It's been reverted now, which I'm fine with, so please just take it as the good faith attempt to move towards consensus that it was. – Joe (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: You're quite right: I have come off as being harsh, whereas I should have taken it as AGF (as intende). I think this has suddenly escalated to making a mountain out of a molehill. I would have gotten back to this article and questioned the edit eventually, but it seems to have hit an explosive reaction before any further civil discussion was undertaken. Hopefully, it can be resolved in a more respectful manner than sudden backlashes. My reaction was OTT so, again, I offer my sincere apologies for implying wrongdoing on your part. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably I was just being over-sensitive, but thank you Iryna. I agree that this is a trivial issue. – Joe (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: There is a longstanding consensus about the title of the Kiev article. Other article titles that mention the city are not affected by the consensus regarding the title of that one article. Each other article has, or must establish, its own consensus on the desired transliterated name of the city. In terms of random use of the city name within Wikipedia articles, there is actually no consensus about that that I am aware of, so that would need to come to an official RfC or other poll before enforcing or dictating or MOS-ing a preferred site-wide spelling. Softlavender (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Although the local consensus at Talk:Kiev/naming has continued to be occasionally challenged in the hope that WP:Consensus can change, there is indeed no consensus for changing "Kyiv" to "Kiev" in other Wikipedia entries, nor has there been consensus for the content of the now-deleted controversial guideline specifying the use of "Kiev", rather than "Kyiv".    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Roman Spinner: I'm not sure you do understand the consensus, I note that you were the *only* editor other than the nom to support the requested move last year. AusLondonder (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: I understand the consensus on this subject all too well. In the cited instance, mine was the initial vote, but in all other instances, after reading what I considered to be incorrect or misleading statements, I merely provided comments which were initially not structured as direct replies or challenges to those statements.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Logic would follow that if consensus holds Kiev should be used for the main article title then we should not use Kyiv elsewhere widely. This seems like a back-door attempt by disconcerted editors to overturn the consensus for Kiev. This guideline has been in place for several years now and not previously subject to controversy. I agree that a RfC to either endorse or reject these naming conventions would be useful. AusLondonder (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No, that doesn't follow at all. See my above example above Beijing/Peking, Czech Republic/Czechia or indeed Airplane/Aeroplane. For technical reasons we have to decide on a single article title, but within articles we can accommodate variants. And the long-standing, project-wide consensus is that we shouldn't attempt to disallow reasonable variants by imposing a single spelling. It's contentious, unproductive and in this case also rather POV.

Your "back-door attempt by disconcerted editors" is a little implausible because: a) I initiated this, and I'm a single editor; b) I've never edited Kiev; c) I've never changed Kiev to Kyiv in an article, only reverted another editor who mass-changed in the other direction. Please try to maintain WP:AGF, or we won't get anywhere.

By the way I do think this is a useful page and would support an attempt to promote it to a guideline. But it is much more likely to succeed if we drop overly-prescriptive things like this. – Joe (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Your counter examples don't convince me. There are many uses of "Peking" that are to some degree separate from the city (there's no need to change the name of the dish "Peking duck") or are specific to a time period before the modern renaming (just as we talk about Danzig in various periods of history instead of Gdansk). The discussions at the Czech Republic article actually decided that using Czechia in running text anywhere on Wikipedia was counter to consensus. And "airplane/aeroplane" is a matter of differences between usage within major Anglophone countries and is still subject to commonality. "Kyiv" is not the majority usage in any Anglophone country and, even if it were, the prevalence of "Kiev" in other English dialects would override it (see Ganges).--Khajidha (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. "Kiev" is not a transliteration. It is the English name of Ukraine's capital city. "Kyiv" is a transliteration from Ukrainian and is what the Rada would prefer that English speakers use rather than the English name. Obviously, the Rada has no power over the lexicon of English, despite what official government channels on both sides of the Atlantic have chosen to do. "Kiev" is still the English name of Ukraine's capital and its ultimate origin long ago doesn't matter. We might as well argue that since french fries might be Belgian, we should not use that name in Wikipedia. The Belgians see "french fries" as an overbearing imposition of French snobbery. --Taivo (talk) 06:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is indeed a transliteration. The Ukrainian (or Russian or Old Eastern Slavic) name is in Cyrillic alphabet, and transliterations into Latin alphabet have varied over time and convention. Also there is no single "English name" for the capital of Ukraine, but "Kiev" is the long-term consensus spelling for the title of the Kiev article, but not necessarily for the title of various other articles about Kievan-related subjects. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and not by fiat. Softlavender (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Unless you are composing a Wikipedia article in Russian and then converting it to English, there is neither translation nor transliteration involved. "Kiev" is the long-standing assimilated term in English. --Khajidha (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
      • No, any Latin alphabet designation of any word or name of an item strictly from countries that use a non-Latin alphabet is a de facto transliteration. This is true whether the language of origin is Chinese (which has notably had a lot of changes in transliteration, and varied systems of transliterations, over the years), Russian, Arabic, or any other non-Latin-alphabet language. Softlavender (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
        • So you would say that I am transliterating every time I use the word "troika" in English? Or when I talk about a "gyro"? Or "bamboo"? Nope, sorry, that is nonsensical. All of those terms have been assimilated and are no longer transliterations. And the same is true of Kiev.--Khajidha (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment about the paragraph. While we're at it, could we please drop the "whilst?" It is poor archaic grammar in American English and even British English will usually use a synonymous term such as although, whereas, or while. Otherwise I would pretty much agree with what editor Taivo explained just above. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • There is absolutely nothing wrong with using "whilst". It's perfectly good British English. Being "archaic" in American English is irrelevant (I should note that a number of Americanisms also seem archaic to many British people). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• If the article is titled Kiev, then using Kyiv anywhere else (aside from direct quotations and such) is blatantly stupid and not useful to our readers. --Khajidha (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Any guideline, which might be reconstituted as a replacement for the deleted one, should continue to clearly specify that the name "Kiev" is the English transliteration of the Russian name of the Ukrainian capital in the same manner that "Moskva" is the English transliteration of the Russian name of the Russian capital.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 11:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. It originated that way, but it isn't a transliteration any longer. --Khajidha (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Not wrong. The Russian name of the Russian capital continues to be transliterated into English as "Moskva" and the Russian name of the Ukrainian capital continues to be transliterated into English as "Kiev".    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 12:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

When one is transliterating, then yes. When one is simply using the existing English name, then it is simply "Kiev" with no transliteration needed. --Khajidha (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, because you seem to have some trouble understanding this, if one is working from an existing Russian text and rendering it into English, then "Kiev" is a transliteration. However, if one is simply writing in English, "Kiev" is an assimilated English word. These are two different things. Since we are discussing text originally composed in English, there is no transliteration involved. --Khajidha (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no trouble whatsoever understanding this. As of this writing, the third point at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places)#First-level divisions states, "... write Kiev, which is a transliteration derived from the Russian name of the city..." "Kiev" was, indeed, once the sole English name for the Ukrainian capital in the same manner that Peking, Bombay, Calcutta or Madras were once the sole English names for those cities. Times and circumstances, however, have changed and "Kiev" now shares English usage with "Kyiv".    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 13:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

If you understand this, then please quit stating that it is a transliteration every time we have these discussions. "Sharing usage" does not mean that the two are equally prominent or that they should both be used. There are many words that "share usage" with another word for a particular meaning, but that are nonetheless not used in Wikipedia prose for any of a number of reasons. --Khajidha (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

When using the term "transliteration", I am not stating my personal opinion, but simply quoting from the above-linked naming conventions. We do not use the native names, Moskva and Warszawa for the capitals of Russia and Poland, because those cities' unique English exonyms, Moscow and Warsaw are not used in any other language. That is not the case with the Ukrainian capital, which lacks a unique English exonym, thus leaving English speakers with a choice of using the transliterated Russian form — Kiev — or the transliterated Ukrainian form — Kyiv — per the city's own English-language logo in Wikimedia Commons — "everything starts in KYIV".    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 14:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

1) Then the above-linked naming conventions are not written in correct English and should be changed, 2) it is unsupported synthesis that the existence or non-existence of a unique English exonym is relevant in any way. For example, the Italian city of Livorno has the unique exonym of "Leghorn", which is rarely used in modern sources. Established English usage for over 200 years is "Kiev". To change that usage either in article titles or in running text here requires the demonstration that "Kyiv" is not just present in English sources, but is predominant over "Kiev". --Khajidha (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No one would contradict that "Moskva" and "Kiev" are, indeed, the Russian names (in English transliteration) for the capitals of Russia and Ukraine. It is further undeniable, and cannot be brushed away as immaterial, that the heart of the controversy centers around that very fact of the Russian origin of the name "Kiev". The explanation is at English exonyms#Ukraine, "Many Ukrainian place names in English historically match the Russian spelling/pronunciation". Ukraine, however, has been an independent nation since 1991 and such historical grandfathering is being shelved as outdated.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The Russian names of the capitals of Russia and Ukraine do transliterate to Moskva and Kiev, but that is not the point. The point is that usage in English for 200+ years means that Kiev is no more a Russian word than microscope is a Greek one. If Ukrainians cannot handle that simple fact, then I feel sorry for their lack of self-esteem but it is of no importance to English usage and they should just pull up their big kid pants and deal with it. --Khajidha (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Geographical designations/place names carry historical and political weight which cannot be compared to ordinary words. The extermination camp is always referenced by its German name, Auschwitz, but the town after which the camp was named, which became part of Poland at the end of World War II, is referenced by its Polish name, Oświęcim. Numerous colonial-era European place names and country names in Asia and Africa were revised to reflect local culture. The English-speaking world absorbed those changes and its geographers have handled the revisions in the same manner that "Kiev" continues being changed to "Kyiv" on English-language maps.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

And there are other places that have not changed names. As for your example of the former location of the death camp, it is not so much that it has changed its name as it is that it is simply not spoken of in English in a modern context. --Khajidha (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

"Geographers have handled the revisions" is totally immaterial. Geographers may have listed "Praha", "Warszawa", and "Moskva" on their maps, but geographers are not the arbiters of common English usage. They are a tiny group of English speakers and writers, the vast majority of whom still use "Prague", "Warsaw", "Moscow", and "Kiev". "Kiev" is no more a Russian word than "Moscow" is. It may be similar to the Russian pronunciation of the Russian word, but it is an English placename. That's the simple truth. It's not a Russian transliteration, it is an English placename like Warsaw, Prague, and Copenhagen. --Taivo (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me present you with a relevant example. In 2007 I was a Fulbright Scholar assigned to Ukraine along with about 20 other American scholars. The director of the Ukraine Fulbright office briefed us at a pre-fellowship workshop in Washington. He (a native speaker of Ukrainian) kept saying some city name that started with a "K" that no one was recognizing. Finally, someone asked him what city he was talking about and he said "that's the name of 'Kiev' in Ukrainian." While 2007 was a decade ago, it simply illustrates that there is a wide gap between the English word "Kiev" and the Ukrainian name of Ukraine's capital city. Wikipedia is tied to English language usage by native speakers of English, not to the political will of the Rada or any other government organization, or even less to the hopes and dreams of the Ukrainian diaspora. --Taivo (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

A frequently presented, but incorrect, argument is that if the US State Department, Lonely Planet, Google Maps or Yahoo Maps are using the form "Kyiv", rather than "Kiev", then those entities must be also using such forms as Warszawa, București, Praha, Beograd, Roma, Firenze or München. However, a glance at the online English-language maps, State Department dispatches or the covers of Lonely Planet city guides proves that alongside their use of "Kyiv", all of these other cities are referenced by their English exonyms — Warsaw, Bucharest, Prague, Belgrade, Rome, Florence and Munich. Only Kyiv is no longer being referenced by its Russian name. As Khajidha confirmed above (16:51, 4 September), "The Russian names of the capitals of Russia and Ukraine do transliterate to Moskva and Kiev..." Of course, "Kiev" was once the English WP:COMMONNAME of the Ukrainian capital since, as indicated under English exonyms#Ukraine, Ukrainian places and Ukrainian people are still being referenced under their Russian names (See Talk:Oleg Sentsov#Requested move 21 October 2016 for an example).

As for the reminiscence from 2007, it illustrates how pervasive the Ukrainian capital's Russian name has been in the English-speaking world that even the very highly educated Fulbright Scholars were unable to recognize the unfamiliar sound of the city's Ukrainian name. Examples may be presented of a hypothetical director of Poland Fulbright office ten years earlier, in 1997, mentioning Warsaw, but also Kraków and, when asked what city he was talking about, he would explain, "that's the name of Cracow in Polish" or still earlier, a hypothetical director of India Fulbright office explaining, "that's how we pronounce Bombay and Calcutta", or China office, "that's how we pronounce "Peking"". Basically, the pronunciation is unimportant — as long as the main title header is "Kyiv", the capital's name can be pronounced to the best of one's ability — and if it's pronounced as in Chicken Kiev, that is up to the individual. Few English speakers know how to properly say the name of the Moldovan capital, Chișinău, but it's still the main header of the article. Kolkata can be pronounced as Calcutta, Kraków can be pronounced as Cracow and Kyiv can be pronounced as Kiev as long as the names of those cities are rendered in print as Kolkata, Kraków and Kyiv.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You simply don't get it. You have not understood that "Kiev" is not the "Russian name", but the English name and you still try to spin this to make Kyiv "the English name". "Kyiv" is a transliteration of the Ukrainian name, it is not the English name of Ukraine's capital. It might be someday, but it is not at this time by the overwhelming bulk of usage in contemporary English (proven over and over and over again in discussions at Talk:Kiev/naming). And it simply doesn't matter how you pronounce the name of cities in foreign languages. When you are speaking English, you pronounce the name of the cities as they are pronounced in English if you want to be understood by English speakers. If I were giving a lecture on the Czech Republic to English speakers, I would not continually say "Praha" if I wanted my listeners to understand what I was saying. I would say "Prague". The name for Ukraine's capital in English is "Kiev". The evidence is overwhelming. "Kiev" is not "the Russian name", it is the English name. Your assertions that "Kyiv" is the common name in English are laughable and based on no evidence whatsoever other than your own statement. The evidence for "Kiev" being the most common name in English has been presented ad infinitum at Talk:Kiev/naming and is clear and incontrovertible. You are just choosing to ignore it. --Taivo (talk) 07:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I get it as well as you do, even if we don't draw the same conclusions. "Kiev" is indeed the Russian name and formerly the English name in the same manner that Danzig and Lemberg are the German, and formerly English, names for the Polish city of Gdańsk and the former Polish city of Lwów, which is now the Ukrainian city of Lviv. Some city names undergo complete changes such as Tsaritsyn/Stalingrad/Volgograd, Königsberg/Kaliningrad or Madras/Chennai, while other city names, such as Peking/Beijing, Bombay/Mumbai, Calcutta/Kolkata, Lwów/Lvov/Lviv, Odessa/Odesa or Kiev/Kyiv are tweaked via minor revising/restructuring of the existing Latin-alphabet form or of the transliteration.

The example of you as a lecturer using "Praha" instead of "Prague" is counterintuitive since, unlike "Kiev", "Prague" is the universally accepted exonym across the English as well as French-speaking world. A more apt example would have been Chișinău which, in the same manner as Kyiv, is known (as a minor national capital) in the English-speaking world under its transliterated Russian name "Kishinev". As a matter of convenience, Kyiv presents less of a pronunciation problem than Chișinău, since it contains three of the four letters within "Kiev". All that is needed is a replacement of "e" with "y" and for "y" and "i" to exchange places.

The mis-communication with the director of the Ukraine Fulbright office arose from the fact that he probably over-enunciated the name "Kyiv" and did not explain beforehand that he would be using the Ukrainian pronunciation KIH-yeev, rather than the Russian pronunciation KEE-yev. Ultimately, however, all transliterations are inexact and, in cases such as Cracow/Kraków or close re-transliterations such as Calcutta/Kolkata or Kiev/Kyiv, it should make no difference at all, except when pronounced by native speakers. We can still reference Black Hole of Calcutta, Free City of Cracow or Chicken Kiev and pronounce the city names in the same manner as before, as long as it is made clear that the modern-day written form of those city names is Kolkata, Kraków and Kyiv.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You are still completely wrong on several points, but the most important is that "Kiev" is presently the English name of Ukraine's capital. It is, by an overwhelming majority, the name that English speakers consider to be the name of Ukraine's capital. It doesn't matter what you think, what the Rada thinks, what the US government thinks. All that matters is what English speakers use when they write in English. "Kiev" is not "the Russian name", it is the English name. Once you understand that (which you refuse to understand), then other minor issues can be discussed. But as long as you refuse to recognize the very simple and easily demonstrable fact that "Kiev" is the English place name for Ukraine's capital city by a preponderence of the evidence, then discussing this with you is pointless. Even here in Wikipedia, every single time that Kyiv/Kiev has been discussed, the discussion has been closed by WP:SNOW. Since nothing whatsoever has changed in terms of what English speakers call the capital of Ukraine in English, I doubt that anything will be different here. --Taivo (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I am still completely wrong on several points to the extent that you are still completely wrong on several points. I don't recall how much resistance there was and how many years were required for acceptance by the print and broadcast media as well as by the public of the names Beijing, Mumbai and Kolkata when those were introduced four decades ago, but the struggle for Kyiv has been ongoing for over two decades (Kyiv Post began publication in October 1995).

The notion, however, that the US government, Lonely Planet or the capital's English language newspaper are ignorant of the fact that they are not using what is "by an overwhelming majority, the name that English speakers consider to be the name of Ukraine's capital" is... ridiculous. No entity or entities fly in the face of "overwhelming majority" in such a fashion. After all, Moscow's English newspaper is The Moscow Times, not The Moskva Times. Prague's was The Prague Post, not The Praha Post, etc.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

No, the notion that those sources you mentioned are not using the majority term is a simple statement of fact borne out by comparison to the vast majority of the English language corpus. And the examples you give of other papers in other cities doing other things are simply irrelevant. --Khajidha (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Since previous arguments have contended that entities which use "Kyiv" are likely to use native names of other cities, thus suggesting that it would be normal for English-language publications in non-English speaking cities to use those cities' native names, it is extremely relevant to show by comparison that the masthead of Kyiv Post is, in fact, displaying the common English name of the city in which it is published.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

No, Roman Spinner, what non-native speakers of English in other countries do is 100% irrelevant to what is true of the English language in countries where English is the native language. And trying to examine the history of other cities whose names have changed is ignored via WP:OTHERSTUFF. Only the WP:SNOW results of "Kiev" as the native English name for Ukraine's capital city is relevant. It's been decided over and over and over again (at least annually for the last 10 years or so). By "native" I of course mean the name of Ukraine's capital used by native speakers of English in overwhelming numbers, not that "Kiev" was originally a word of English origin. But now the origin of "Kiev" is unknown to native speakers (and they don't generally care). It is an English-language place name. --Taivo (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Taivo, even when you are unwilling to see or accept them, milestones in the non-English-speaking world are 100% relevant in the English-speaking world when they receive sufficient spotlight, with this case being a good example.

As for WP:OTHERSTUFF — there is no WP:OTHERSTUFF — the examples of other cities' English newspapers were only submitted as confirmation that this name dispute is uniquely positioned. The world's largest publisher of travel books, Lonely Planet, uses common English geographical names for the titles of its books — and yet it uses "Kyiv". The US State Department uses common English geographical names in its dispatches (not Warszawa or Praha) and it still uses Kyiv. Not a single English-language city newspaper in a non-English-speaking country uses anything other than that city's common English name, thus Kyiv Post must be using its native city's common English name.

Finally, the staff responsible for writing and editing newspaper content in non-English-speaking countries is composed of either native speakers of English or locals who have near-native English skills. As for the general public in the English-speaking world, those who "don't generally care" would probably only know that the difference between Chicken Kiev and Peking duck is that the former is a chicken and the latter is a duck. On the other hand, those who do have occasion to reference "Kyiv" as the Ukrainian capital are likely to be well informed due to the name dispute's media coverage: 1.(2000), 2.(2004), 3.(2008), 4.(2014), 5.(2014), 6.(2014), 7.(2014), 8.(2017), 9.(2017), 10.(2017) and numerous other examples.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

No, Roman, the usage by non-native speakers is irrelevant. Language norms in any language are set by the native speakers. As far as your point that "the examples of other cities' English newspapers were only submitted as confirmation that this name dispute is uniquely positioned" goes, the answer is "so what?" There's lots of irregularities and unique usages in English. What papers in Prague or Moscow do is no more relevant to the discussion of the name of Ukraine's capital than the conjugation of the verb "to run" is to the conjugation of the verb "to be". "Not a single English-language city newspaper in a non-English-speaking country uses anything other than that city's common English name, thus Kyiv Post must be using its native city's common English name." Since every discussion so far has come to the conclusion that Kiev is the common English name, this sentence is demonstrably false. And this is quite aside from the fact that it is begging the question by stating that "not a single English-language city newspaper in a non-English-speaking country uses anything other than that city's common English name" as proof that Kyiv is the common English name. Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant to say "in any other non-English speaking country", your conclusion does not follow from your premise.--Khajidha (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

(ec)You (Roman) keep calling "Kyiv" the common English name when it is absolutely not. Your carefully cherry-picked articles are not relevant except in the sense that they exist as single data points for "Kyiv". The majority of usage isn't in articles about names, which are still not relevant when they are in media from countries where English is not the native language. Of course those papers will not follow common English usage, they will follow the usage of the country they originate from. You are claiming that expat native speakers are arbiters of common English usage? What a joke! The opinions of a few newspaper editors and ex-pats in non-English-speaking countries does not matter when determining English usage. Take a couple minutes and examine the evidence that has been amassed in the archives of Talk:Kiev/naming and you will see that "Kiev" is the name that is overwhelmingly used by English speakers, not just your cherry-picked selection of a half dozen expats and editors. I just ran a search of the New York Times for "Kiev" from 1 Jan to today and got 107 hits. Just yesterday (5 Sep), this appeared: "Bremmer, who met Freeland in Kiev in 1992, good-naturedly chided her for a strange foible: a habit of writing notes on her hands even when she has notepads." Those articles include topics such as trade, the war in the Donbass, the war on corruption in the government, and sport. I ran a search with the same parameters for "Kyiv" and got 5 hits. One of those hits here uses "Kiev" throughout and the only use of "Kyiv" is in the name of a Facebook page that is referenced in the article. That's 20 to 1 for "Kiev" from the most influential American newspaper during the last 8 months. I could run this test on 20 other American, British, and Canadian papers and come up with similar results. (The Miami Herald favors "Kyiv" because its owner is Ukrainian.) That's how you determine common English usage--by what is used in general, not by a travel book, expats, and opinion writers. --Taivo (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Khajidha, "the usage by non-native speakers is irrelevant" to my last comment since I made no mention of it (you were most likely referencing that perennial legislative villain, Verkhovna Rada). As for "your conclusion does not follow from your premise" — it does indeed so follow. The lead sentence of my paragraph immediately above was, "...the staff responsible for writing and editing newspaper content in non-English-speaking countries is composed of either native speakers of English or locals who have near-native English skills". No one knows better than they what their own city's WP:COMMONNAME is in English in the same manner as the staffs of such papers as The Moscow Times or The Warsaw Voice know the English name of their respective city. Finally, giving me "the benefit of the doubt" that I meant to say "in any other non-English speaking country" would lead to an incorrect conclusion. I meant exactly what I said.

You (Taivo) also arrived at an incorrect understanding of my posting's last paragraph, when you assumed that the ten links which I provided were "carefully cherry-picked articles" which were intended to demonstrate that newspapers were using "Kyiv", rather than "Kiev". Those links were actually submitted in reply to the last line in your previous posting, "But now the origin of "Kiev" is unknown to native speakers (and they don't generally care). It is an English-language place name". All ten of those links, which you apparently did not examine, deal solely with editorial decision/indecision as to whether "Kyiv" or "Kiev" is the correct use. They, in fact, opted for "Kiev" for the time being, but not without concluding that "Kyiv" was also an option. My thanks to you, however, for providing the links to Miami Herald in the previous discussion, even if those were unfavorable to your position. However, Miami Herald is still in the minority and will not overcome the use of "Kiev" by other newspapers.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

No, Roman, I was referring to your mention of "milestones in the non-English speaking world" and "Not a single English-language city newspaper in a non-English-speaking country" with that comment. And, no, the conclusion that because English language newspapers in Moscow and Warsaw use the common English names that the usage of Kyiv by the Kyiv Post means that Kyiv is the common English name does not follow. As for your point that "No one knows better than they what their own city's WP:COMMONNAME is in English", that really makes no sense. A newspaper is named what its owners and publishers want it to be named, not what outsiders think it should be named. Thus, the names of these papers only show the preferred usage of said owners and publishers, not the preferred usage of the Anlosphere.--Khajidha (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It is still wrong. "Kiev" is not a transliteration from the Russian, but the English name of the city. Transliteration from the Russian would be "Kiyev", for that matter. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Break for ease of editing

This discussion has been completely derailed. At no point has anyone contested that Kiev is the most common name for the city in English. But WP:COMMONNAME is a guideline for article titles, not spelling within articles. The question here was whether there was a pre-existing consensus to prefer Kiev over Kyiv in article text across Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Agree that in general we should use Kiev in all mentions of the city except in cases where direct quotes from Ukrainian are being used. To do otherwise would be illogical, given we have a consensus that the English name is Kiev. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• No, there is no such official consensus. Also, it would not work with articles such as Kyiv Post, which are proper names that use "Kyiv" and/or have "Kyiv" in the article title (there appear to be hundreds of Wikipedia article titles which currently use "Kyiv"). Softlavender (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The Kyiv Post is a clear exception to the general rule. But there won't be many. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

    FC Dynamo Kyiv is another one, and it probably generates most of the pages with Kyiv in the title.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Kiev/naming/archive_007#RfC:_The_common_name_in_the_English-language_of_the_capital_of_Ukraine_is_"Kiev" Especially read the comments AFTER the closing box around the discussion. --Khajidha (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Whether Kiev is at "Kiev" or "Kyiv", there will always be titles that require the other spelling since they are proper names (Chicken Kiev and Kyiv Post, for example). That has never been the issue and is a red herring. But there is a consensus that "Kiev" is the most common English term and should be the article title (see continual rehashing at Talk:Kiev/naming). Since the article title is "Kiev" and since the consensus to keep the article at that name is based on fact-based discussions of common English usage, then there is, ipso facto, a consensus that the name of Ukraine's capital in English is "Kiev" and that should be the named used across Wikipedia. Isn't there an overt Wikipedia-wide guideline or policy that articles, when linking to another article, should always use the name of that other article and not link to a redirect unless there is an overwhelming reason not to? --Taivo (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Isn't there an overt Wikipedia-wide guideline or policy that articles, when linking to another article, should always use the name of that other article and not link to a redirect unless there is an overwhelming reason not to?" No, there isn't. Also, "Kyiv" is in boldface as the alternate spelling in the first sentence of Kiev, and is the official Ukrainian and U.S. governmental spelling. Softlavender (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia cares not one whit for any official government policy. It cares about common English usage only. "Kiev" is the name of Ukraine's capital in common English usage. That's all that matters--what English speakers actually use, not what their governments use. --Taivo (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• You misunderstand. There is no "Wikipedia-wide guideline or policy that articles, when linking to another article, should always use the name of that other article and not link to a redirect". Softlavender (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• There are 554 Wikipedia articles with "Kyiv" in the title: [1]. (Only a fraction are related to Dynamo Kyiv.) -- Softlavender (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking at that page I saw a lot of redirects where the actual page uses "Kiev". I also saw a lot of names that are directly analogous to Dynamo Kyiv in that "Kyiv" is part of the subjects name, but is not really being used as the city name. For example, "Kyiv Post". That is the name for the newspaper and that spelling is used when referring to that publication even by sources that use "Kiev" for the name of the city itself. These pages are no more indicative that we should be using "Kyiv" directly as the city name in running text than the existence of Bayern Munich indicates that the region of Germany should be referred to as Bayern rather than Bavaria--Khajidha (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Out of the 929 articles listed there, I subtracted all the sections, redirects, and categories, which leaves 554 Wikipedia articles with "Kyiv" in the title. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Which leaves mostly articles that, to quote LjL from the discussion I linked above, "are examples of proper nouns that contain the name of the city but are not the name of the city: the rules for spelling them are independent." In other words, those articles are irrelevant to the discussion. In normal English usage, one would write things like "While in Kiev, I watched the Dynamo Kyiv game and read the Kyiv Post, but could not find a restaurant that served a good chicken Kiev." --Khajidha (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

We're not talking about your personal conception of normal English usage; we're talking about Wikipedia policy, and there is no policy against using the official Ukrainian and official U.S. governmental spelling ("Kyiv") within articles other than Kiev. Therefore each article must establish its own consensus, if there is any dispute. Softlavender (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the point is that if an article mentions the city, it should mention Kiev and not Kyiv. If it mentions anything else, such as Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, there should be consensus on that page (of the university) what usage is proper.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

According to whom? There is no Wikipedia policy that so states, there is no consensus for that, and it is contrary to MOS:VAR. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

There was consensus for that in the discussion I linked. I'm not sure that MOS:VAR applies to this question, but to whatever extent it does it would be overridden by the advice on that page to use plain English and to seek commonality. --Khajidha (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

No, there wasn't. That discussion was closed within three days, and was only a consensus for the title of the Kiev article, per WP:COMMONAME, which in itself only applies to article titles, not spellings or usages within articles. Softlavender (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

According to the statement from the closer, there was such a consensus. --Khajidha (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion wasn't even opened about the title of the article. It was about "Kiev" being the most common English name for Ukraine's capital, not about moving the article. Here's the requester's opening statement: "Even though it is not the officially-accepted direct transliteration of the name of the city from Ukrainian, the historically accurate common English-language name for the capital of Ukraine is 'Kiev'". That was the basis for the discussion and moving (or not moving) the article wasn't even mentioned (except, perhaps, in passing--I'm not going to read the entire thread since the result was "SNOW"). --Taivo (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

And if closing per WP:SNOW isn't WP:CONSENSUS in Wikipedia, then there is no such thing as consensus. --Taivo (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment A small band of editors don't like the fact we regard Kiev as the appropriate, common name to use on English Wikipedia because it's Russian (nope, it's an English word now, the Russian name for the city is Киев, anyway) and are seeking to effectively game the system and shop their discontent here. It is a tiresome example of Wikilawyering arguing that sure, overwhelming community consensus is we use Kiev but we shouldn't use it in actual article text, only titles. How ridiculous and illogical is that? These editors are now seeking to foist a red herring upon us, saying "oh, but what about proper names, like Kyiv Post?" But that was *never* the issue. The initial editor to raise this dispute was en masse changing links in places such as infoboxes from Kiev to Kyiv, see an example here and here. The editor in question did this dozens and dozens of times across a huge number of pages. AusLondonder (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi AusLondonder. I have a name, and that's a blatant falsehood. I reverted a single batch of undiscussed changes of Kyiv to Kiev–63 articles to be precise–by AndreyKva. You cited this information page to justify reverting my reverts two months later, which is why I attempted to update it. – Joe (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Let us go back and try to be constructive rather that evolve into mutual accusations. Do we all agree on what current consensus is, and which changes are appropriate, and which are not?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Well the purpose of this discussion was to ascertain whether there was an existing consensus to prefer Kiev over Kyiv, not try forge a new one. The fact that such a simple question has generated this lengthy and contentious discussion surely points to the answer being no. Personally I'd like to update this page to reflect that, but since it doesn't have guideline status anyway, it's immaterial. Various editors seem to feel strongly that we should impose Kiev, whether everywhere or only outside proper names, based on prior discussions at Talk:Kiev/naming, but for that I'd suggest there would need to be an RfC or similar discussion on a more widely watched page. – Joe (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

We can do open a RfC indeed, though I am not really looking forward given that some users have very strong feelings about the issue (and canvassing from other projects could occur as well).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel that this is already covered by the principles of use English, avoid jargon, and commonality. If we have determined that the common name is "Kiev", then it seems obvious that that would be the name utilized in running text. With obvious exceptions for direct quotations and names of things that incorporate the city name in the form Kyiv when spoken of in English (ie: the Dynamo Kyiv type usage). --Khajidha (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If we do do an RFC, we might want to generalize it to cover similar occurences elsewhere (Cape Verde, Ivory Coast, East Timor, Swaziland, etc). That is, it is resolved that "general usage of country/city names on Wikipedia should follow the naming of the article (eg: Cape Verde, not Cabo Verde; Swaziland, not Eswatini)." --Khajidha (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I don't regard 63 changes as a "single" change. It seems perfectly appropriate to described that as "en masse changing". You "attempted" to "update" a guideline because you didn't like it? Yet you are criticising other editors for "undiscussed changes" (by that you mean using the long-agreed name for the Ukrainian capital)? I disagree with your second set of comments, I believe a consensus exists in favour of this set of naming conventions until consensus is developed to the contrary (Status quo ante bellum) which would presumably be linked to the main article naming. As far as I know, no one has suggested "imposing" Kiev "everywhere" - very specifically excluding rare examples such as the Kyiv Post. AusLondonder (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with Khajidha that a RfC should be unnecessary, although it may become the only option to avoid the persistent Kyiv POV-pushing (and I'm not just referring to this dispute). WP:BLUDGEON and WP:COMMONSENSE come in here. The use English policy is a very good point, since Kiev is the generally accepted English word for the city. AusLondonder (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you know what "batch" means? The point is I am not part of some conspiracy going around changing Kiev to Kyiv. Andrey made a bold set of changes (which I am not at all criticising him for), I happened to notice and challenge them, we discussed it on his talk page. That's how Wikipedia works. It was only months later that you dredged it up again and turned it into this bizarre battleground.

The status quo is a) nobody has pointed to a single prior discussion about the use of Kyiv/Kiev in articles; b) Kyiv is used in hundreds of articles apparently without any objection; c) in the absence of guidelines to the contrary, MOS:VAR advises us not to change one accepted spelling variant to another. English being the wonderfully diverse language that it is, equating the most common spelling with the only accepted spelling is a non sequitur.

I changed this information page (not a guideline) in good faith because they are supposed to reflect existing consensus, not dictate it. I think it's a good idea to have such a guideline, but if editors insist on including guidance that does not have consensus behind it, it will remain unenforceable and useless. Get consensus first, then write the advice. – Joe (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe that we have demonstrated here that consensus already exists with the consistent closing of Kyiv/Kiev arguments at Talk:Kiev/naming by WP:SNOW in favor of "Kiev", whether the article name was or was not being specifically discussed. It is only a comparatively miniscule number of editors who insist on repeatedly pushing "Kyiv" every six months to a year without any real measurable increase in actual overall usage. --Taivo (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

A few additional aspects of the previously quoted WP:SNOW vote at Talk:Kiev/naming/archive_007#RfC:_The_common_name_in_the_English-language_of_the_capital_of_Ukraine_is_"Kiev" should be taken into consideration. That discussion took place in late November 2015, over two years and nine months ago, which is a long time in today's world. WP:Consensus can change and subsequent discussions and votes could not come close to the same level of participation. Replacement of "Kyiv" with "Kiev" in articles which feature the form "Kyiv" should not be done wholesale and each such change should be explained and justified on the relevant article's talk page.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You are grasping at straws in the face of overwhelming evidence. The discussions concerning the overwhelming usage of "Kiev" over "Kyiv" in English are regular and at least annual--whether discussing the article title or a broader scope, the evidence has not changed one iota in that time. Indeed, some media sources (such as the NY Times as I recall) looked like they might switch to "Kyiv" 10 years ago, but are now firmly fixed in the "Kiev" camp. Your assertion that the evidence is changing rapidly is simply false and not based on actual facts. "Kiev" is now, as much as ever, the overwhelming choice of native speakers of English as the name of Ukraine's capital. --Taivo (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

No you have not. For one, those discussions are about the title of a specific article – a different question to that posed here, governed by a completely different set of policies (WP:COMMONNAME versus MOS:VAR). Second, local consensus on one article talk (sub)page can't be considered binding across every article on the project. AusLondonder's canvasing of editors from Talk:Kiev/naming was unfortunate, because it has turned this discussion into an extension of that long-running debate, when in fact it is entirely separate. – Joe (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You're wrong in so many ways it's tiring to address all the inaccuracies. You obviously don't know understand what canvassing is. WP:APPNOTE, part of the WP:CANVASS policy, says "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. and The talk page of one or more directly related articles. So I think you should apologise for the false accusation of inappropriate conduct on my part. It was completely proper for me to notify interested editors and prevent your "updates". Furthermore, you are completely wrong to suggest consensus formed to support a naming policy does not apply project-wide. That's the whole point of consensus. MOS:VAR has nothing whatsoever to do with this situation. WP:UE certainly does, though. AusLondonder (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Quite. It's clearly ludicrous to claim that this is a separate issue. The two issues are very obviously closely entangled. People who have expressed their opinion on the naming of the city should obviously have been alerted to this discussion as the issue obviously interests them. Any claim that this was inappropriate is, frankly, ridiculous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out at Talk:Kiev/naming, the problem was not the notification itself but the decidedly non-neutral wording: where an editor is seeking to overturn the existing consensus that we use the "Kiev" spelling is a blatant distortion of the context of this discussion; plainly a call for reinforcements from those who are already invested in the phantom 'consensus' in favour of Kiev. You only have to look at the section above to see that it succeeded in derailing the original discussion and turning this into an extension of an existing WP:BATTLEGROUND. I will not apologise for AusLondonder overlooking what I actually wrote in favour of responding to a strawman that fits better with his narrative of anti-Kiev conspiracy – a habit so reliably seen in this discussion that I have to conclude it's deliberate.

Wikipedia editors, of course, don't get to decide what the name of a city is. That would be ludicrous. We can reach a consensus on the best title for an article (which we have) and also which variants are established enough for use project-wide (which we haven't). Unless you are seriously contending that Kyiv is not used in English, WP:UE doesn't help us resolve the second issue. – Joe (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The resolution of the title question gives us the answer to the question of what to use in running text. The only real exceptions to this would be titles that are highly connected to one particular English dialect, which are allowed in very few cases. Use English says that "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage". If we have established that general English usage is "Kiev", then WP usage should be "Kiev".--Khajidha (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

That's strange, because what you actually just wrote was: AusLondonder's canvasing of editors from Talk:Kiev/naming was unfortunate, because it has turned this discussion into an extension of that long-running debate, when in fact it is entirely separate. Which certainly looks like you objected to him even posting it on the talkpage and do not consider that these are completely interrelated issues (as they very clearly are). If that's not what you meant then I suggest you word it better. His posting it was in no way "unfortunate". It was perfectly normal, acceptable and useful. It certainly alerted me to this discussion, which I would not otherwise have been aware of. Of course people with a strong view on the naming of the city (whether that be Kiev or Kyiv) are also going to have a strong view on the naming of articles which feature the name of the city. And they have a right to put this view across and to be alerted to relevant discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

And to say that the title of the article and the usage in running text are separate issues is patently ridiculous since the data used to prove the preponderance of "Kiev" in English over "Kyiv", whether for an article title or for running text is exactly the same. If you require proof X to determine A and proof X to determine B, then if you have proven X, you have proven BOTH A and B. It's not rocket science. "Kiev" has been proven over and over and over again at Talk:Kiev/naming to be the normal and most widely-used English name (by an overwhelming proportion) for Ukraine's capital city. The consensus to use "Kiev" at Talk:Kiev/naming is built on WP:SNOW, so there is overwhelming acceptance of the evidence among Wikipedia editors. To somehow try to claim that the snowball consensus at Talk:Kiev/naming is invalid in this discussion is simply an attempt to ignore Wikipedia editors that you wanted to hide this discussion from and push your own snowed-under minority viewpoint free from opposition. It's hard to WP:AGF when your statements belie your disappointment at having opposition evidence and views based on that evidence presented here. --Taivo (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe the correct formula for what is happening here is: If X=A and X=B then A=B. The snowball consensus for article's title equals the snowball consensus for running text because the evidence for both is exactly the same. (With exceptions for proper names, of course.) --Taivo (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)