Jump to content

Talk:Kyiv/naming

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Kyiv

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vecrumba (talk | contribs) at 04:35, 30 September 2008 (→A RFC response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

Summary of older discussions over names in the articles

Request to move to official name

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

The result of the proposal was No move: far more opposes than supports, arguments don't justify renaming the article in accordance with the relevant naming convention guidelines WP:UE and WP:NCGN. Parsecboy (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It has been proposed that Kiev be renamed and moved to Kyiv.

as per official sources - the Government of Ukraine insists that its capital is called Kyiv - who has a right to deny?

3) Official names of all Ukrainian cities in both the native official language of Ukraine, according to Ukrainian constitution(being Ukrainian), and official transliterations of those names into Latin Alphabet (intended for international usage in all official manners) can be found on almost all high level official governmental sites (designated with .gov.ua), such as:

a) portal.rada.gov.ua - Official Portal of Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhovna Rada) (Ukraine having a Parliamentary-Presidential form of government).
- www.rada.gov.ua/translit.htm (Official Transliteration Guide into Latin alphabet for International Usage) - today I could only access the page through google cache - http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:UR3aaPN_VdQJ:www.rada.gov.ua/translit.htm+%2Bukraine+official+transliteration&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=sg
- http://portal.rada.gov.ua/rada/control/en/publish/article/info_left?art_id=105828&cat_id=105543 (List of Regions)
b) http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en - Main United Portal of Executive Branch(ruling) of Ukrainian Government
- http://www.kmu.gov.ua/control/en/publish/article%3fart_id=235995&cat_id=32672 (under Administrative Structure)
c) www.ukrstat.gov.ua - Official Governmental portal of The State Statistical Committee of Ukraine.
- http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/region/obl_e.htm (Regions)
- http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/region/region_e/mKiy.htm (Kyiv City)
d) http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/ - Official Governmental Portal of Ukrainian Census of 2001 with all the official data and names.
- http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/regions/reg_mkyiv/ (Kyiv City)
e) http://www.mfa.gov.ua/ - Official Governmental Portal of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine
- http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/265.htm (List of Regions)
- http://www.mfa.gov.ua/mfa/en/publication/content/312.htm (The City of Kyiv)

Vvolodymyr (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC) (keep forgetting to sign)[reply]

Discussion

Partial list of previous duplicate requests (only recent ones):

--Irpen 21:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I saw that.
But what does that mean?
The official name is clear as daylight - so can we move already or wait another 17 years?
The government of Ukraine insists that its capital is called Kyiv - who in their right mind will deny that right?
This is like the Twilight Zone
Thanks again
--Vvolodymyr (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The government of Ukraine has no authority over English language. --Irpen 21:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we're not talking about Ukrainian government having authority over English language. For that matter no single government or group of persons have authority over English language - On International Arena. It is now unofficially a language of international conversation.

So... Since no government has authority over English language on International Arena (and Internet and wikipedia in particular IS an International Arena), then no single country or a group of persons has a right to dictate their name to a city that belongs to a nation of people.

But - since a country belongs to it's people they have a right to name cities in their country. But if that country happens to use other alphabet then Latin - they can Romanize (Latinize, Transliterate into Latin) the names of cities, of people - so that THAT name could be used in (for example) English language - on International Arena.

It would be a pity if some other country or some unrelated group of people chose to completely diregard that name and impose/dictate their own. Would those others have an upper hand over the people, to whome that city belongs? No they wouldn't.

Besides - wikipedia - is NOT a loudspeaker for persistent people with ideas, or perpetuation of old habits - it is an informative system - it informs unsuspecting visitors about stuff. Like... names of Country capitals. It wouldn't be prudent to simply perpetuate a misconseption or an old/derelict name/term - simply because of habit. Nooo - it would be prudent to inform those visitors that the name has been changed - it is now Kyiv. But even if they look for Kiev - we put a redirect there to it's true name (Kyiv) - and put a little note about name change - and the visitors will be well informed.

After all we did change the name of the country - from Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Why did we do that? Well... maybe because Ukrainian government changed it by itself - because it has a right to? And it didn't dictate anything regarding the use of English language - did it? No - it simply changed it's own name.

--Vvolodymyr (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a perfect example of Proper Use of Wikipedia as informative platform. It informs people about things - even about common misconceptions.

Grand_Central_Terminal Grand Central Terminal in NY is often mistakenly called Grand Central Station. Here are google results: GCStation - 1,310,000 GCTerminal - 816,000

Just because the wrong "station" is used more often - it is still WRONG. Why? Because a proper authority insists on calling it a Terminal - and wikipedia informs visitors about it in a short and sweet way.

Now Ukrainian government has announced what the names of ALL its cities are, in Latin Alphabet and thus English language. Luckily International Geographic organization and other organizations have confirmed those names... What stops wikipedia? a group of random people? Why should those random people hold the information ransom for who knows what reasons - with endless rhetoric, designed to stall the Truth from coming out for eternity? Why do they "have an authority on English language"? Additionally Why do they have an authority over city names - despite a clear statement about those city names by the government of people that own them?

You want legitimate conclusive sources? OK 1) All The government sites I have posted. 2) In the archives a link to that Geographic Authority

It's Kyiv in there everywhere. Also Odesa, Kharkiv, Lviv, and so on.

Anybody care to give sources that would have enough power and credibility to contest those of the above? Anybody? The Burden of Proof is on them.

--Vvolodymyr (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at these American official governmental sources. Although US does not hold authority over English language - noone does - it does have a majority of people with English as primary language....

[1] - US Depratment of State [2] - again Department of State [3] - CIA (not the most reliable source, but....)

But then again I completely expect someone finding official (governmental are as official as they get) sources of some country with English as official language - and they will have 'Kiev' in there, and in other they will have 'Kyiv'.

So - with all this confusion and speculation, or simply uncaring use of names - and the lack of authority on English language - especially on International Arena - which Credible Body do we give preference for naming a city to? and why?

--Vvolodymyr (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely not - until Kyiv becomes predominant English usage (if it ever does; Praha has not, nor Roma). We have innumerable guidelines which say to use common names rather than official ones, centering about WP:Use English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Kyiv is in English. Wikipedia is not a loudspeaker for perpetuation of common misconception, but informative platform - to help people learn things other than they know. There is also information that most of "Kiev" hits come from the Russian sector of the internet as a simple transliteration [Russian_Transliteration] from Russian Киев. All in the archives. As well as other compelling evidence. Let us be prudent and not ignore things, like all the evidence that has been posted before. Vvolodymyr (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is not a megaphone for the Ukrainian or the Russian or the Foolandish National Truth either. We are not here to indoctrinate our readers with anybody's new and improved truth. Kyiv does occur in English, sometimes; so does Praha. But neither is what English uses; neither communicates with readers of English as clearly and distinctly as possible, by using the language which actually exists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • P.S. Another thing - Czech Republic and Italy are bad examples since their government sites in English section DO use Prague[4] and Rome - Italy didn't bother to put up and English version[5]. Their governments never established their Official English names for Prague and Rome as anything else.
          Examples refuted. Wiki Guidelines say that we should use Ukrainian Transliteration in one place, and that there are no firm rules in another place.
          Conclusion? Vvolodymyr (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened?

OK. What just happened? User:JPG-GR has removed the move request without reason? What is this?

Vvolodymyr (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again

{{move|Kiev|Kyiv}}

Vvolodymyr (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You know - this is ridiculous - I'm not allowed to put a move request in the discussion page of the article (Kiev) - but when I do it here - it says "move Kiev/naming" etc. And there's nothing I can do to change that. It is clear that the move is intended from "Kiev" to "Kyiv".... I hope this imposed "technicality" does not cancel the request to move.

Vvolodymyr (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. This time I DID add the thing onto the main page.

Vvolodymyr (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the notification at the top of Talk:Kiev (diff.). - Regards, Ev (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I See. Thanks. When is the deadline? Vvolodymyr (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Seeing that you publicized this discussion at 00:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC), the standard five days of discussion would elapse the 29th of September (monday). However, this deadline is not set in stone. If a reasonable degree of agreement is reached before the five days pass, the discussion can be closed earlier. Likewise, if after five days of fruitless discussion there are indications that a reasonable degree of agreement can still be reached, the discussion can be extended for another five days, or longer. - Regards, Ev (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And might I be bold enough to ask who decides whether there are indications that a resonable degree of agreement is reached? In other words if you want to call me who do you ask on what my name is (I'm am able to speak English through my years of learning and so does Ukrainian government through ministry of foreign affairs)? What IS freedom and when is it being denied (in tears)? Sincerely Vvolodymyr (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the best of cases the decision will be taken by us, the participants in this discussion, unanimously :-) But usually it's the administrator that closes the discussion the one who asseses if a reasonable degree of agreement has been reached in favour of one option or the other.
On your second point, you can't really compare your own name with that of a city like Kiev, whose general importance, eventful history, cultural significance and rich artistic & architectonic heritage have assured it a place of prominence in the English language. In other words, English-speakers have often spoken, written and read about Kiev for a looong time; and in doing so have established a common English usage, a widely accepted English name, that the English-language Wikipedia (following its naming conventions' core principle of "using the name the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize") reflects in its articles. - Regards, Ev (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Conventions"

Wikipedia:Naming conventions#City names

Convention: In general, there are no special naming conventions for cities, unless multiple cities with the same name exist.

Discussion, rationale, and specifics: See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Ukrainian names

With the general naming conventions above in mind, it is still sometimes necessary to render Ukrainian names, normally written in Cyrillic, into the Latin alphabet (to romanize them).

See Romanization of Ukrainian for details of transliteration systems.

Most personal names have a conventional English spelling, rendered phonetically. This is usually very close to transcription by the BGN/PCGN system, which is quite intuitive for English speakers to pronounce. Some Ukrainian names have conventional spellings that come from other languages, like Polish, transcription from Russian, transcription into German, etc. For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc. Linguistics topics often use "scholarly", or "scientific transliteration" within the text.

So if you go by that - we should not have this discussion.

Anyways - why is this a controversy? Why don't we establish that fact first - if no sufficient or firm proof and evidence is provided - then we should stick to the Official name (you can see it in the article itself By The Way). I don't see any proof or evidence from those who make it into "controversy". Sufficient information was provided to Prove that Kyiv is the new name, and official name, and in English and with sources. No conclusive information is seen from the deniers.

The whole "it is widely used at the moment" rhetoric - is neutralized by the simple fact of an establishment of a new term, which made old one obsolete. It doesn't mean that the old term should not be used - it will be mentioned as the former name - to inform the visitors. And the redirect - so when people type "Kiev" they are redirected to new valid name "Kyiv" and they learn that there was an act of renaming the city.

Calcutta was renamed Kolkata. Maybe it didn't have so many random internet personalities denying the change so persistently. In such view - we should put a question - what and who gives those persons a right over the official government of Ukraine to name its own cities? Vvolodymyr (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Oppose because of arguments already presented in previous requests. Official naming has nothing to do with English usage. The new "official" form is not the predominant form used in English in English speaking regions of the world. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence Needed for this statement
Official naming has nothing to do with English usage
How is the predominancy of the form measured?
Is en.wikipedia.org limited to English speaking regions of the world?
What is meant by 'English speaking regions'?
What relevance does the predominance have to the establishment of a new name?
Vvolodymyr (talk) 04:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) what is "ukase"? Is it some insult?;
2) Where is the proof and evidence to show beyond any reasonable doubt that in case of English or Latinized(Transliterated) names the only warrant is usage?
3) There may have been a loss during the exchange - has nothing to do with patriotism - official name is an official name.
There are many examples of when people use the wrong terms, names etc. - but no matter how overwhelmingly widely used they are compared to the correct(official) term/name, they are still incorrect (or in this case outdated).
Good example was given by me about Grand Central Station (in NY) which is a Terminal - common misconception.
4) Also governments of countries sometimes change the names of their cities - and good example is Kolkata (formerly known as Calcutta). The world simply accepted the name, and they were allowed to put Kolkata on wikipedia whithout much fuss, simply because of some minimal respect of a country's decision.
Where is the respect here? Where is an exhaustive proof that Governments are not allowed to name their cities? Please provide proof first.
Otherwise there is only speculation.
You can see the sources to government sites and usage by American government, United Nations etc.
When it comes to sources - governmental sources are far more credible than an opinion of a random internet individual.
Please - let's have some constructive discussion with backup.
Vvolodymyr (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose At present "Kiev" is the standard form in English-language works. An encyclopedia should not be at the forefront of change, encouraging it, but merely following what scholarship does. The usage of a particular government should not override common usage. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That's actually a pretty clear statement. Thanks for that.
Just for clarification - where can one find a confirmation to the statement about wikipedia merely following what scholarship does, and not be on the forefront? I think this is one of the 2 or 3 crucial point which need to be determined beyond doubt.
Another statement about "Kiev" being standard does not reflect reality. It is habitual - yes. It is historical (presumably grew in usage during Soviet Times, when Ukraine did not have a right of self-determination) - yes. But it is not the only one in common use - a large usage of "Kyiv" is present and not overwhelmed. In other words those two are used at the same time. Most governments and international organizations do adopt and use "Kyiv" (examples given before) - but those are in the minority (naturally) on the net - but they are more credible by nature(important!). And other sites (personal and various private organizations) use "Kiev" - and they are naturally more numerous - but inherently less credible, and often use "Kiev" and "Kyiv" freely interchangeably (on the same source). Also "Kyiv" is official - not only in Ukraine - but in United States for example (not only Kyiv but the entire list of modern geographical names of Ukraine), while "Kiev" is unofficial.
Therefore we have a choice of preference to make.
I naturally assume that encyclopedia makes emphasis on accuracy and credibility rather than wide usage.
Statement about "particular government" - do not forget we are not talking about Greece refusing the right to Macedonia(another country) and the rest of the world, to use the name "Macedonia". This kind of influence is unacceptable! I fully agree. But we are talking about government naming it's own cities. Transliteration is a legitimate way for a country with non-latin alphabet - to introduce the names of it's cities etc. to the world - for proper use. This is not to be taken lightly.
Thanks again.
Vvolodymyr (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that in order for it to be a contribution and a valid opposition - concrete evidence is needed.
1) Conclusive disproof of the specific Wikipedia Policy about Ukrainian Geographic names is needed.
The general city naming rules are ambiguous Wikipedia:Naming conventions#City names, There exists a very specific and very relevant wiki policy specifically on Ukrainian names including Geographic names Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Ukrainian names which by order of logic supersede in accuracy a more general policy (i.e. a definition of a square is a more precise definition than that of a rectangle, when describing a square)
2) The form commonly used is outdated and needs update as per credible governmental sources versus various random persona and private sources.
3) "names most commonly recognized" is a more ambiguous statement from a more general wiki naming policy - Specifically for Ukraine - wiki haqs a specific policy. Please provide dispute. Vvolodymyr (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) A detailed explanation of our naming conventions, including the section on Ukrainian names, can be found below.
2) "Kiev" is not outdated, but continues to be the form commonly used in the English language. — Furthermore, for the purposes of our naming conventions governmental usage is neither more important nor more "credible" than the common usage of individual anglophones reflected everyday in private (as in non-governmental) sources. In fact, the opposite is the case.
3) Far from being ambiguous and distinct from our case, the statement in question is the main principle of our naming conventions, upon which all specific guidelines are based, limiting themselves to explain how this core principle applies to each specific type of article. This includes the section dealing with Ukrainian names, as made obvious by it's very first sentence: "With the general naming conventions above in mind[...]". - Regards, Ev (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rename WP:UE is very clear about this sort of thing, the alternate name already exists as a redirect so there's no issue of people searching the other name not being able to find the content. If we aren't going to call Germany by it's real name, Bundesrepublik Deutschland, I think we can leave this the way it is too. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that in order for it to be a contribution and a valid opposition - concrete evidence is needed.
1) Statement about rules being clear is incomplete and incorrect. The specific rules about naming Ukrainian names and locations says Ukrainian Transliteration of Ukrainian names to be used.
2) The alternate name ARE to be added in a addition to the primary and marked as former, ancient, or in other languages (specifically Russian and Polish where applicable).
3) Comment on naming of Germany is inapplicable as an example since German government insists on Using "Germany" on international area including legal documents and international agreements, and German government does not dispute the usage of "Germany" on international arena in any way.
4) your opinion was heard but it needs sufficient backing to be taken as a valid contribution. Vvolodymyr (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to "Kyiv". Peking changed to Beijing. It is written exactly the same way in Chinese. All that changed was the preferred way of pronouncing it. It took some time for the change to be accepted. Some organizations were more progressive regarding this than others. Wikipedia in my eyes is a progressive reference source because it can change and be updated quickly, and instead you have so non-progressive conservatives who possibly have a hidden agenda pulling the ropes. 20 years ago. Ok. Now with all the evidence to me keeping the name as Kiev is incorrect. Bandurist (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please confine your remarks to the renaming and don't make outrageous accusations of conspiracies. Unless you really think the cabal hates the Ukraine. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a silly comment. I stand by my opinion. Some of these "non-progressive conservatives" are the same individuals who are disprupting other articles dealing with Ukrainian matters. Bandurist (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let's not make it into accusation discussion. Could you please restate you Approval using only arguments regarding the validity of all the given reasons for the renaming Kiev to Kyiv in titles and bodies of all articles&stubs on en.wikipedia.org (e.g. wiki policies, valid sources, etc.) - otherwise we do not have a single confounded opposition or approval. It would be a pity to simply make The change due to lack of confounded opposition or approval by anybody except the initiator of the change. Thank You again for you interest Vvolodymyr (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone understands - we're not talking about different sets of alphabets - we're talking about the simple Latin alphabet used in international English (what you see on the keyboard) - not Turkish alphabet or Vietnamese, for example. Question about Kyiv - is not some internal issue - it's the name that was established by all branches of Ukrainian gov't to be used in communications with govt's of other countries, in international legal documents, agreements, international geographic societies. Refusal to use it - is a spit in a face.

The burden of proof lies on those who deny the use of Kyiv as the primary.

Vvolodymyr (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been requests to justify, provide conclusive evidence etc. on numerous questionable statements made in opposition to using Kyiv as a primary. Be noted - without any proof, conclusive evidence - those statements cannot be considered credible - and Wikipedia:COI If it is hard for someone to find those requests - please inform about it here, and we will compile a list for you. Meanwhile please provide sufficient evidence when making controversial statements, or they will be ignored.

So far none of the points have been confirmed - if you want your opinion to be a contribution - please hurry - otrherwise in a day the changes will be made as per request to move and rename.

Thank You. Vvolodymyr (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If anyone wishing to contribute but has trouble finding all the viable proof and evidence already presented, please request for a compilation before posting a comment. Thank You for your interest. Vvolodymyr (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It is long overdue. The argument that Kiev is standard English usage doesn't hold water. United States officially uses Kyiv and they are an English-speaking country, so does Canada and they also use Kyiv. The issues of sticking to the old name is political more than anything else. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An explanation of our naming conventions policy, including the section on Ukrainian names, can be found below. - Ev (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, this survey is being repeated on a three-month basis, and each time the same arguments are repeated: Our core policy of WP:NC(UE) still maintains that most-commonly used name in English irrespective of everything else, thus until Google will show a 10:1 hit in favour of Kyiv, this discussion is useless and will show no result. My advice for the initiators, is to start publishing cookbook materials showing how to make Chicken Kyivs if they want the process accelerated. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did it ever occur to anyone that if this issue keeps coming up every three months from different users there is a reason for it? Google has never been an authority in WP. This may not amount to much, that is true. But Wikipedia has to face the reality: Kyiv is gaining in usage and it's only a matter of time until this community catches up with the real world.--Hillock65 (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well when restaurants and shops start offering Chicken Kyivs then wikipedia can "catch up", until then, its Kiev. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that in order for it to be a contribution and a valid opposition - concrete evidence is needed. This is not a democracy, this is not a poll, and until a valid argumentation is provided your opinion will be take as a Wikipedia:COI.
Please note, that not being an administrator, and being less than a week on wikipedia, your self-perception of wiki procedures might be incorrect due to the lack of experience. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply saying "strongly oppose" does not add anything constructive to the decision.
Neither is saying strongly support. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) the past argumentations are being taken under consideration. Consensus have not been reached yet - but time is running short - so, again please provide conclusive evidence that negates/disproves/overrides the reasons (with valid credible sources) provided on this page for the name change from Kiev to Kyiv everywhere on en.wikipedia.org when explicitly or implicitly pertaining to the capital city of Ukraine; before the time runs out.
I have provided, a google lead of 10:1 in millions is a strong evidence, a similar google book hit of 10:1 and of course the fact that BBC, CNN and Associated Press still use Kiev negates, disproves, and wrt wiki policy of using most common English name disproves the reasons. So let the clock tick, this is not the first vote that got nowhere, nor alas will it be the last. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2) If you still insist to use the fact that this issue has been risen as often as every 3 months for the past (?)umpteen years - then consider that the actual discussion has been waging more or less continuously for these past years - then all the more there is a reason to hurry up and provide credible, relevant evidence to oppose(in your personal case) the evidense and reasons including but not limited to the official wiki policy on Ukrainian names. I have posted several times the most crucial point that are needed for your opinion to become a valid contribution.
See reasoning above, also deciding on a validity is a question for admins not newbies. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3) Again - there is specific and clear rule to Ukrainian names, which being so specific supercedes the more general and ambiguous policies.
Again - it does not, because the policy to supersede is that of using the common English name has been agreed back in 2004 when wikipedia started, hence why we use names like Munich, Warsaw, Moscow and Kiev instead of München, Warszawa, Moskva and Kyyiv. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4) Please refrain from personal attacks, sarcasm, sophisms, condescending overtone and other manners that are uncivil.
Please point out where you noticed this occurance. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5) We're only discussing the global usage of the name "Kyiv" on en.wikipedia.org ONLY when it pertains explicitly or implicitly to the capital of Ukraine. This does not include culinary dishes, brands of photo cameras, and so on.
And Chicken Kiev follows directly from the global usage of the name for the city it has been named for. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6) Please refrain from expressing your POV and other Wikipedia:COI, and other undignifying ways to attempt to discredit the validity of the discussion. This only badly reflects on the beholder.
See answer to point 4, in Russia we have freedom of speech and expression and again the only person who can stop me from using my Human Rights is God himself.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. 7) Google hits often create false positives and is not a conclusive reason to override all the other credible evidence presented here here.
P.S. The false positives is true for a relatively small hit (<10,000), but here we are dealing with millions of hits, and yes it has never been conclusive, yet it certainly can not, and will not be discarded. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. 8) Please refrain from misleading the potential passerby by Modifying the wiki policy in your quote Wikipedia:NC(UE) - does Not say "irrespective of anything else". This was a very undignified act. Vvolodymyr (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If dignity is expressed by summation of understanding of wiki policies, I can't help to wonder what person is hiding behind that identity. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is intended as a clarification of the opinion posted by Kuban-kazak. <-added this to be clear.
Thank you for taking such a loving time. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless your potential constructive input is welcome. Thank You for taking such a strong interest
As is yours. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion was heard but it needs sufficient backing to be taken as a valid contribution.Vvolodymyr (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, an admin can decide that, not you.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral З одного боку, Kiev — традиційна англійська назва міста (інші українські міста таких назв не мають). З іншого, часто використовується назва Kyiv, зокрема футбольна команда Dynamo Kyiv.
    One side: Kiev is a English name for the city, and kyiv is native name. Another side: Kyiv is widely used, for example a well-known fotball club Dynamo Kyiv, which plays in UCL.--Ahonc (Talk) 15:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input.
I would like to urge you to consider the following points:
#) Kyiv is the official name, and the only one to be used internationally in legal matters.
#) Kyiv has been approved to be the proper name for the capital of Ukraine by American Geographic Authority as well as other branches of its government (US being one of the countries with English language - if that truly matters these days).
#) Canadian government has switched to using Kyiv
#) Kyiv has gained a sufficient coverage on the internet - internet being a portion of the world's information space.
#) Google is a private company's search engine - and wikipedia warns people not to abuse "google hits" due to false positives. Kiev is also a domain name (not to be confused with city name) and half of google hits for kiev pertains to "xxx.kiev.ua" in other words a domain name - NOT capital of Ukraine. Chicken Kiev also does not describe the capital of Ukraine but a dish. Kiev is a proper transliteration of the Russian Киев - and is used in .ru part of the internet.
#) Kiev is not recognized to be the official name - but rather habitual - on the level of a nickname.
#) Usage of "Kiev" is mostly due to lack of knowledge about the real name of Ukraine's capital (being Kyiv) - and not having the article in the right place and not having Kyiv in the body of the articles contributes to this lack of knowledge.
#) Although no country dictates the use of English - every country has an undeniable right to name it's own geographic entities - and no other country, random internet person or an organisation has a right to deny that right to that country.
#) Kyiv is also an English name of the capital of Ukraine - moreover it's the only official one, more over it's a new (13years) name that outdates the old one. Moreover the new one is chosen by the people of Ukraine when they gained the freedom of self-identification. People of Ukraine had no say whatsoever when the term "Kiev" started to be used - which was created from the transliteration of non-native name of the capital. The native name of the city in fact is Київ - since the only official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian.
#) And last but far from least - wikipedia has an official policy regarding Ukrainian names Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Ukrainian names
Sincerely, Vvolodymyr (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide sources. Wikipedia should be based exclusively on the sources.--Ahonc (Talk) 14:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apply WP:SNOW; my opinion on the substantive mstter is above, and remains unchanged. Vvolodymyr has repeated the same points interminably; they persuade no-one not already convinced (a small band of Ukrainian patriots who do not by themselves constitute consensus); they have persuaded no-one, they didn't the previous times this was brought up, they are unlikely ever to do so. In the hope of getting an enthusiastic editor to do something useful with his time, I will create a new section, and answer his latest list one by one. I hope that will be the end of this discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will comment on the rest in due time. For now I will have to remind you that this is not about persuading everyone, every passerby etc. - it is Impossible - it is to provide and accept the best evidence which will confirm the relevance of usage of a particular term. And snowball does not apply here in the least bit. Vvolodymyr (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's about one of two things; showing that you already have enough support to be considered consensus, or persuading others to join you until you have that support. Neither is happening here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for further comments, please don't bother. I have answered at length only because it might make clear to you why there is no hope of this ever being consensus, and why I personally find your arguments immoral and offensive. I have no wish to comment on them further, especially if your responses are more repetitions of the "same tyrannical principle". I shall be leaving Wikipedia shortly, and washing my hands throughly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia official guidelines insist that simply posting a Oppose template does not guarantee that they will be taken under consideration. Simple "moral support" does not guarantee accuracy of the subject in any way. And what happened here is complete lack of any well confounded opposition to the compelling evidence provided, not counting yours, of course - I haven't had time to assess it yet. Vvolodymyr (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, refrain from attempting to shut up an opponent - this is very rude and reflects badly on you - which in turn undermines your motives. Also please refrain from making such controversial statements as there never be a consensus (in wikipedia understanding). If you find my arguments immoral and offensive - please argument them the proper way - but not here, on my talkpage instead.
As to your mention of the fact that I repeat things - is because people who put "oppose" template - keep making same mistakes - they do not arguement and do not address the most important points (which only you attempted - and I will assess them in due course) - thus I kindly remind those people that according to Wikipedia official policies - they would have to show good effort and arguement their opinion - otherwise their opinion will not be considered as a valid input - I give those people a chance to come back if they wish and do so - if they care. If they don't care then so be it.
And please - I do honestly wish you didn't get so emotional and personal - and I honestly do not harbor any negative feelings towards any of the opponents - sorry if for some reason anybody comes to such conclusion. But this is wikipedia - and there are guidelines and some basic etiquette - let's keep it civil. Sincerely Vvolodymyr (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry! I'm really truly infinitely sorry! You can't imagine how sorry I am that you feel that way - but you didn't arguement thoroughly - I did not make that up - Wikipedia has rules - and those rules are being broken ruthlessly - and Ukrainian freedom is being denied.... :( Rules? 1) simply expressing an opposition does not guarantee it to be considered a valid contribution - but these sorts of oppositions have been counted nevertheless - preferred over the feverently collected evidense. You have no idea how that makes citizens of Ukraine, who are unfortunate enough to be English speakers and are denied the right to see their capital to be called by it's name!
Again - I don't rant - do not insult me please - I have enough insults on my head already. I repeat because people repeat mistakes of opposing baselessly, and then never bother to reply on requests for further arguementation. So if you doin't - how can we possibly count your opinion as a valid (credible etc.) contribution? Vvolodymyr (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign)[reply]


  • Oppose. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is clear that we should use "the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject". A simple set of Google tests shows Kiev to still be the most popular usage:
If Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Ukrainian names conflicts with these wider guidelines it should be rewritten so it does not conflict. Iamaleopard (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment on Google searches. If you search all books without any restrictions in time or languages you will get the above result. But I guess we should search English books and recent ones, since you should remember that Kyiv for known reasons was hardly used before 1991, so it would be more interesting to search the latest years, let´s say 2000–2008 and it will give 1013 hits for Kyiv and 2283 hits for Kiev. So the difference isn't that big anymore. And if you do the same with Calcutta and Kolkata you will find more hits (3750) for Calcutta than for Kolkata (1251), although here in Wikipedia the article has been changed to Kolkata. Närking (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - I see no change in arguments given since this discussion began years ago. There is no official name of Kiev in English. There is only the name that the Ukrainian government prefers to use in a language that isn't even official in their own country. What the designate in English is irrelevant. The name should be determined by the majority of Anglophones. That name still appears to be Kiev. 71.106.182.162 (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Just as I said in the last move discussion, I will say it again: we should pay attention to the page's content rather that the title itself. A title is a title, but the content is what matters the most. Starting a page move initiative every three months is de-constructive, when efforts could rather be spent on improving the article itself. Just look at the page right now, a total mess, full of update and accuracy tags. Referencing is poor. Now to go and clean up the article. —dima/talk/ 05:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As an aside in an earlier iteration I've also dealt with the use of google results. I see no evidence that the situation has changed since the last time, and so I put my personal preference aside to note Kiev still predominates. Nor has Kyiv made it into being indicated as common English usage on the U.S. BGN database. I have to agree with DDima. It's the one year anniversary of the article failing GA, and it still has a long way to go. For those who are ardent lovers of Київ, we can work to improve the article or argue to yet another inevitable and unproductive (and as always with its vituperative moments) stalemate. —PētersV (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add that the Kolkata example (google versus WP) is irrelevant. English is the subsidiary official language of India. If Calcutta had been instead renamed to Kaali Daal, that would be the name of the English article as it is the English name of the city in a state whose official language is English. Same if New York were officially renamed to New Amsterdam but everyone "still used" New York. Not the same rules as transliteration or common English name of a foreign-language named city. Mumbai/Bombay is the better example as it doesn't falsely imply the choice of WP name has anything to do with choice of transliteration. PētersV (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the time being English-speakers continue to say Kiev. English is our language, and it has evolved names for places over time that differ from the official name in the language of the place. We have a right to our language, to use our language, to cherish our language, even when sometimes we neglect an official pronunciation in favour of our common pronunciation. That is our right as speakers of English, and Wikipedia has adopted a naming policy that respects that right.

    The French call the City of London 'Londres'. That is their name in their language. It has been used for centuries and it is the absolute right of French-speakers to retain their word in their language for the City of London. I would insist that French Wikipedia continue to use 'Londres' until such time as francophone speakers themselves decide to change their pronunciation and spelling. (If they ever do). German speaking people call my country 'Kanada'. That's 'wrong'. It's not official. But they have every right, and I support that right.

    Germans call Venice 'Venedig'. The Italians call it 'Venezia'. The Spanish call it 'Venecia'. The people of every language have the right to their words. User PetersV above makes excellent points.

    Look at it this way: Kiev is so important a city, that English has developed its own name for the city. It is a mark of honour for a language to develop its own unique name for a place. Over time, as English speakers become more accustomed to seeing the official 'Kyiv' spelling, our usage of the word may evolve and change. English use of the word 'Turin', for example, seems to be switching increasingly to 'Torino' and 'Torino' may eventually become the standard. But for the time being please respect our right to find articles using titles that reflect the words we actually use when we come to an English-language encyclopedic resource. Thank you.Corlyon (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why we aren't persuaded

  1. ) Kyiv is the official name, and the only one to be used internationally in legal matters.
    • This is the nub of the matter. Most of the rest of these are special cases of this. The answer is simple, and if Vvolodymyr cannot accept it, he would do better to find another language to bug.
    • No government decides, or ever has decided, what is correct English. That means no government, not even all of them acting together; the only test of whether something is the English name is the collective usage of English-speakers. Non-English speaking politicians do not even have a voice in this decision as individuals. The suggestion that a government should do so is politically and ethically offensive to many English-speakers; but it is also a fact that governments do not.
    • It is also Wikipedia's decision not to use officially sponsored names against usage, no matter what officialdom, state or private, is involved. On our scale, English usage is stable; official decisions change without notice. If English in general happens to adopt the official name, as with aspirin, that's another matter; if something is the common name, we use it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ) Kyiv has been approved to be the proper name for the capital of Ukraine by American Geographic Authority as well as other branches of its government (US being one of the countries with English language - if that truly matters these days).
  3. ) Canadian government has switched to using Kyiv
  4. ) Kyiv has gained a sufficient coverage on the internet - internet being a portion of the world's information space.
  5. ) Google is a private company's search engine - and wikipedia warns people not to abuse "google hits" due to false positives. Kiev is also a domain name (not to be confused with city name) and half of google hits for kiev pertains to "xxx.kiev.ua" in other words a domain name - NOT capital of Ukraine. Chicken Kiev also does not describe the capital of Ukraine but a dish. Kiev is a proper transliteration of the Russian Киев - and is used in .ru part of the internet.
  6. ) Kiev is not recognized to be the official name - but rather habitual - on the level of a nickname.
  7. ) Usage of "Kiev" is mostly due to lack of knowledge about the real name of Ukraine's capital (being Kyiv) - and not having the article in the right place and not having Kyiv in the body of the articles contributes to this lack of knowledge.
    • The claim is unevidenced, and I don't believe it.
    • However, even if it were true, we are not here to evangelize for any body of knowledge; we have policy against being a soapbox.
    • We are not here to ladle knowledge down our readers' throats. It would be immoral for us to do so.
    • We are nere to communicate with our readers, in the language they already speak. One of the things this article communicates is that the Ukrainian name of Kiev is Kyiv, and that that name is occasionally used in English. So Vvolodymyr's last claim is false. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ) Although no country dictates the use of English - every country has an undeniable right to name it's own geographic entities - and no other country, random internet person or an organisation has a right to deny that right to that country.
  9. ) Kyiv is also an English name of the capital of Ukraine - moreover it's the only official one, more over it's a new (13years) name that outdates the old one. Moreover the new one is chosen by the people of Ukraine when they gained the freedom of self-identification. People of Ukraine had no say whatsoever when the term "Kiev" started to be used - which was created from the transliteration of non-native name of the capital. The native name of the city in fact is Київ - since the only official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian.
    • Largely a repetition of #1. Insofar as it is not:
    • Kyiv occasionally occurs in English, especially in works which are being politically correct. This does not make it the common name, normally used, and widely understood.
    • The local name need not be the English name, and there is no reason why it should be. Praha, Nürnberg, Roma, Warsawa, Moskva are none of them the English name of the corresponding city; although all occasionally occur in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ) And last but far from least - wikipedia has an official policy regarding Ukrainian names Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Ukrainian_names


OK Guys. I'm having a soft moment and would like to call out to everyone to take a fresh friendly look (myself first).
Let's ease off, shake off the bad thoughts and speak plainly like human to human :)
First off I do apologize if my manner of speaking has offended anyone - in no way did I truly mean to offend the opponents - I was sucked in by ibserving how these sort of things were done before - and I guess I looked at the wrong examples.
So if I had to set aside all the bureaucracy, and so on and only left with one most crucial point it would be this:
Point) I do strongly believe in the right to self-determination. And the reason the gov't sources are always pointed out is in no way intended to say that some governments have control over the universal language of Earth communication - being English. In no way. English will remain English. The reason it's there is to simply show that the act of self-determination has indeed occurred - and the body that represents the people of Ukraine (by elections etc.) has legitimacy to establish the fact of self-determination (over, for example, simply asking a person on the street). That's the only reason I post those gov't sources.
Thought) So what would be your biggest "point"? Vvolodymyr (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vvolodymyr, our only point is that we should follow our naming conventions, "an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should follow."
That the articles of the English-language Wikipedia should use the names preferred by the government of the respective country (and institution in general, presumably) is your own personal opinion. It is, however, at odds with what our naming conventions indicate.
As already explained over and over again, the main principle of our naming conventions is that "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" — which may or may not correspond to what the local government (and/or population) prefers.
How this general guiding principle applies to geographic names (including cities) is explained in our naming conventions for geographic names, which state that "[w]hen a widely accepted English name [...] exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always." — Then it goes on to clarify that "[i]f no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name." This usage of local official names is intended for "places with no established English name" only, not for major cities like Kiev.
The sloppily-written section on Ukrainian names of the general naming conventions aknowledges these main guiding principles by stating at it's very begining: "With the general naming conventions above in mind[...]" — So, with these general principles in mind, it's crystal clear that the sentence "For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used" is intended for little-known towns and "places with no established English name" only, and not for all Ukrainian cities & geographical names; and most certainly not for a major city like Kiev. — Only when reading this sentence in isolation from its proper wider context can it be misunderstood as a general principle for all Ukrainian names. It's precisely to avoid such mistaken interpretations that PMAnderson added a clarification, which so far has found unanimous support among those familiar with writting our naming conventions.
In short, and for absolute clarity, for the specific purposes of using names in the English-language Wikipedia the usage of a person on the streets of Winchester, Providence, Auckland or Brisbane is more important than the decisions taken by the Ukrainian government or the desires of (a certain portion of) the Ukrainian population. — In my personal view this is exactly how it should be. The individual human being is free to speak as he likes, irrespective of what any government -own or foreign- says or does. But that is just my personal opinion :-) Regards, Ev (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Template:RFCpol I would ask that all parties currently involved in this dispute cease and desist for the moment and let the opinions of new, previously univolved editors be heard. Thank You. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) you don't determine if the debate came to a natural end.
2) this action is rude, as it was intended to shut me(your opponent) up. (I don't shut ppl up - I urge them to arguement their opinions. repeatedly.)
3) and the most below the belt, undignified action was by User_talk:Pmanderson who just like that on own accord changed a policy!!!! Changed to suit the opinion expressed here!!!!
Isn't it nice? - want articles to be written your way - just go and change policies up to you liking.
WOW!!!! Vvolodymyr (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 3), in his edit PMAnderson did not change the naming conventions, but limited himself to clarify the language to avoid possible misunderstandings. His edit was valid, and in my view necessary. — See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Ukrainian names. — Regards, Ev (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vvolodymyr, I'm not just trying to shut you up. I am suggesting that we all should shut up and see what the rest of the community has to say. Repeating the same argument between the same users again and again serves no purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rules are rules

1) Pasting oppose template is not a valid opposition - Wikipedia policy. 2) There is a specific wikipedia official policy on Ukrainian names.

Until those rules are changed we should follow them and not speculate on why they are there. So according to rules - we put Kiev to Kyiv - and change Kiev to Kyiv in bodies of articles when pertaining Ukrainian capital.

Dispute that first, please - since there are administrators here who have strong personal opinions and throw their weight around by shutting people up, by closing discussions, by counting unarguemented opinions that happen to support their personal views - why aren't you following clear guideline? Why is it perfectly ok to count as a valid contribution, an opinion of a person who says - oh that rule about naming Ukrainian entities - "oh it's nothing - we'll just ignore it cos I don't like it, and I don't like the person who initiated the move request." ??? Is it not Unjust?

I will take it up with anybody I can - this sort of Tyrannical enforcement will not go unnoticed, if those individuals insist. This is an unjust denial of freedom of self-identification!

Vvolodymyr (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are reffering to my above request for comment, it's not an "oppose template", it's just what it says it is, a request for comment from previously uninvolved users so that consensus may be reached. That is how Wikipedia works, by consensus. So put down the costume and back away from the government building. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it prevents me from commenting (starting in less than an hour) on things like pure speculation. If I don't point that out - will it be noticed later on? Can you guarantee me that? And I never accused anyone of conspiracy - just unjust treatment of the subject matter. Vvolodymyr (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if all things go down the drain - why should some users have the power to ignore very specific policies? This is why I think this is like a twilight zone - it's weird. I read the thing on consensus of course. Anyways - let's see where it goes. I truly hope that personal opinions Wikipedia:COI will not be given so much weight as in the past. And I truly hope that the specific naming convention will not be ignored as it has been so far (by the sheer fact that it is not being followed as we speak). So I won't "pester" with my "rant" for however long that clamp on my mouth is imposed, for fear of being reprimanded - meaning in future attitudes towards me and the things I propose will be even more stern. Vvolodymyr (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you are really missing the point here. Your opinion on the matter has been heard (about 100 times) and will of course be considered. The purpose of RFC is to get as many views as possible in order to best gauge community sentiment on the subject at hand. There's no need to argue with everyone who posts an opinion you don't agree with as it's already crystal clear what you think. And, I might add, rules are not rules. Ignore all rules is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes here I am - an IDIOT - talking - while smart people like Pmanderson are changing conventions up to their liking! What's there to talk about??? Tell me - what is this? [6] ??? Vvolodymyr (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this page Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK - you're insulting me again. Please refrain from the insults! He did change the policy - ok. and I reverted it back to the original state. From now on please keep that sort of unrelated thing in the Public Forum. Vvolodymyr (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In his edit PMAnderson did not change the naming conventions, but limited himself to clarify the language to avoid possible misunderstandings. His edit was valid, and in my view necessary. — See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Ukrainian names. — Regards, Ev (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official U.S. usage

Since Hillock65 brought it up again (U.S. official usage), this is not quite true. What we have is a representative of the State Department spelling out K-Y-I-V at a press session. When we check the U.S. official database of place names, we still have Kiev as the common usage term (U.S. Board on Geographic Names--BGN--Conventional), "Kyiv" does not exist at all as a variant, what is in the database is "Kyyiv" (BGN Standard) basically as the most appropriate transliteration, then a slew of variants. "K-Y-I-V" does not appear as a primary, secondary, or any other variant. It exists only in the State Department announcement. —PētersV (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My personal preference is to support Kyiv, but after some perusing I don't see a ground-swell yet in common English-speaking usage. If and when the U.S. BGN conventional entry is updated from "Kiev" to "Kyiv", then I would support that as a concrete indicator that the spelling of "Kyiv" has finally "arrived." —PētersV (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A RFC response

As per WP:NCGN, we all seem convinced that the title should be translated into English. We must therefore decide which translation best fulfills: "a widely accepted English name" (from WP:NCGN}

We are not here to debate whether the Ukranian government can name their Capital what they will, as they clearly can. That is not the substance of the debate. As per WP:NCGN, we have to establish what the majority of people call it. Parenthetically, we see this with Burma/Myanmar, with the current preference for Burma.

So, I have based my next comments on WP:NCGN in the section: Dispute Resolution. This is an accepted guide to determining the acceptable title.

1. The first section suggests the consultation of notable encyclopedia. Britannica uses Kiev, Encarta uses Kyiv. The article says that Columbia uses Kiev, but I have no way of checking. Having failed to reach a consensus, let's move on.

2.There has been a lot of discussion about the relative merits of Google. There is some debate as to the accuracy of Google in such a matter. However, Google gives me a 10:1 ratio to Kiev, where as Google Books gives me 2:1.5. Google Scholar gives Kiev in a roughly 10:1 ratio. What I'd like to say is that these are not a source of themselves. Google Search gives us a rough indication as to normal use, but, as noted above, they are not sources unto themselves.

3. The third step is to apply dictionary sources to the search. I have access only to the OED, which doesn't mention it. The Library of Congress doesn't mention it either

4. News Sources. The BBC only uses Kiev. The Times Style Guide [7] uses only Kiev, and recommends against Kyiv. The New York Times mainly uses Kiev. The Herald Tribune uses Kiev only.

Having used some recommended sources, I have added some more on. The FCO uses Kiev in their country guide. The US Board of Geographic Names uses Kyiv and as per the Press Conferance, this is offical US Federal Usage.

I would now like to draw people's attention to this from WP:NCGN

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

In this example, I searched on GeoNet for Kiev and Kyiv. It acknowledges that Kiev is a 'conventional name' which PetersV just mentioned. According to WP:NCGN, "if it acknowledges a conventional name it is evidence of widespread English usage". IN this example, it does give Kiev as a 'conventional' name. Therefore, we must accept it as 'evidence of widespread English usage'.

To sum up what is an over-long comment, I think the situation is clear. Whilst the State Dept. are no longer using Kiev, the majority of the English-speaking world (as seen through Encyclopedias and Newspapers etc) are still using Kiev. As the point at issue is what is widespread English usage, I think it is clear that Kiev should be used; naturally with a redirect from Kyiv, as well as a note in the first line stressing the other possible English name. I would also recommend reviewing this again in the future, as these things will change.

I would also say to everyone involved that, at the end of the day, there are thousands and thousands of other things to do on Wikipedia. Perhaps we should all be doing them, rather than quibbling over semantics? Conclusion: Strongly OpposeTheone00 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None has quoted a very popular source which will continue to grpw in popularity. Monopoly has included Kyiv on their world edition and it is spelled Kyiv. here The tide is slowly turning toward Kyiv. Where as 15 years ago it could rarely be found, today it is the most progressive spelling of the word.Bandurist (talk) 11:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyiv/naming&oldid=241940729"