Jump to content

Talk:Kyiv

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andriy155 (talk | contribs) at 23:58, 1 November 2009 (→English-language newspapers and news websites). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeKyiv was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 21, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
May 23, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 25, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Talk Archives

DO READ ARCHIVES BELOW BEFORE PLAYING WITH KIEV/KYIV/KIJÓW/etc THINGS

New principles for editing this talkpage. All read, please.

This page has become less than useful for discussing the article itself, as it is flooded with discussion of the name of the article, an issue for which there is no consensus.[1] If you nevertheless feel further arguing for a name change to be useful, please take it to the new subpage Talk:Kiev/naming. It is hoped that this division will be beneficial for the naming discussion, as well as make it easier to deal with other kinds of issues here. Until further notice, I'm afraid any further discussion of naming on this page will be reverted, until the point has sunk in. I'm serious.

Furthermore, there must be no more editing of the functional archive links at the top of this page into non-functional redlinks by changing "Kiev" to "Kyiv" in them. That is plain vandalism and violation of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and any more of it will lead to blocks. I hope these new principles will improve the useability of this page. Good luck and happy editing. Bishonen | talk 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

P. S. Please do not archive this post, it needs to stay up. I have moved all sections from "Changes by User:hkdd" and later, which includes the "Requested move" naming poll, to the new page, and archived older sections, from Feb 2006 to June 2007, in the new Archive 7. At least that's what I tried to do... the chronology of this page was frankly a bit of a mess. I left the "Summary of older discussions over names in the articles" near the top of the page. I see people are already using the new Talk:Kiev/naming page, thank you ! Bishonen | talk 20:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As per above, the Kyivization discussion that still was added to this page is moved to Talk:Kiev/naming and responded there. Please use this page to discuss other aspects of the article's content. Any takers to improve the city economy or transportation section? Thanks. --Irpen 02:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But please note - the inevitable future surveys re proposals to rename the article must be notified here not just conducted on the subpage. Johnbod 02:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English or Latin maps?

In the middle ages the city was mentioned in published sources as Kiou, Kiow, Kiew, Kiovia. On one of the oldest English maps of the region Russiae, Moscoviae et Tartariae published by Ortelius (London, 1570) the city is spelled as Kiou. On the map by Guillaume de Beauplan (1650) the name of the city was given as Kiiow, and the region was named as Kÿowia. In English traveller Joseph Marshall's book Travels (London, 1772) the city is referred as Kiovia.

The pictured map and its title appear to be in Latin, not English. In what language were the other mentioned maps written? This should be clarified. Obviously, these would have been used as sources in the English-speaking world, but the current text implies that they were written in English, and that doesn't appear to be completely true. —Michael Z. 2007-08-05 21:07 Z

Those are English maps, yes. Please look at their source at the image page. --Irpen 21:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on the detail of Russiae, Moscoviae et Tartariae Descriptio it says "Publisher: Abraham Ortelius (London, 1570)", but on the full map page I see "Auctore Antonio Jenkensono Anglo edita Londini anno 1562... Publisher: Abraham Ortelius, Antwerp, (1570) 1592", so something's mixed up. On the actual scan, I see something like "Auctore Antonio Ienkensono Anglo, edita Londini anno 1562 & dedicata istriss: D. Henrico Sÿdneo Wallis presidi."
But regardless, the map must have been aimed at an international market, because its titles and legends are exclusively in the Latin language: Lituania, Borysthenes fl., Mare Caspium, Crimea. Obviously this could have influenced the English language, but it is not in English.
I wonder what language was used for Beauplan's and the other maps mentioned. —Michael Z. 2007-08-05 21:31 Z

Well, there is no doubt about the second (1804) map that it is English. As for the earlier times, were there other than Latin maps common at all? If not, the Latin maps were the only ones used by the Anglophone travellers similar to any others. --Irpen 21:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing is really mixed up here: as our article on Abraham Ortelius expressly says, his atlas also gives sources. The version you have there is obviously in Latin. There were later versions in Dutch, French and German. These versions were slightly different. E.g. the French version was the first atlas to give the correct shape of Southern America. Kiovia may be an Ortelian translation of English (and primarily Polish) Kiov. Kÿowia looks like a Dutch spelling. FWIW, that Dutch diphthong, now usually spelled "ij" (both letters being capitalized at the beginning of a sentence or a place name, so Iceland is IJsland and not Ijsland) is pronounced like English "ay". BTW, I am sure that Ortelius's atlas was more influential in shaping British geography mores than the English source he was using. --Pan Gerwazy 10:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culture section

This section is in such a pity shape. I started on expansion. Please join. --Irpen 17:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the Culture section, as well as some other sections could benefit from expanded content, I would not say that it is in pitiful shape. However, I would be happy to take a look at your suggestions in time, and if I don't have too many problems navigating the rather arcane editing protocols of WP, offer my suggestions. How will consensus be determined with regards to your hoped for edits? - --Volodia Tatlin 16:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotecting?

Can the page be completely unprotected as long as the page move privileges are kept fully protected, so to avoid any gung-ho renaming? The article has been protected for quite some time, I think. --Asteriontalk 23:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not protected from editing. Join in. --Irpen 23:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is though semiprotected and has been for almost two months. --Asteriontalk 00:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Horlo has sort of promised not to make any edits related to changing Kiev to Kyiv. Actually he promised not to make any edits at all until the name was changed, and it does not look that is going to happen anytime soon. The current RM will be open until September 21, 2007, and it has been requested not to revisit for six months after that. 199.125.109.35 04:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article candidate

OK, dear friends, now it's time to get back to the article's improvement. This is a very good article and the WP:FA status is within a reasonable reach. So, I nominated it for WP:GA. Please help improving it when reviewers leave constructive suggestions. --Irpen 03:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nice article, but can use more inline citations. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is nice, but it should contain more inline references (preferably to secondary rather than tertiary sources) and should be checked for peacock terms. Besides, it is not comprehensive. The economy section doesn't make much sense and is effectively about industry. Economy is not based exclusively on industry. The section leaves many important questions unanswered (How much taxes are collected in Kiev? Where are they allocated?). The government section should ideally provide references to legislation (as the article Legal status and local government of Kiev does). The article lacks sections on crime, media, utilities (Where tap water is taken from?). As the article is likely to be expanded further, it is worth creating separate more specific articles for some large subsections (e.g. on transportation). Good luck. BTW, is the Eurovision succesion box really that important and necessary? Colchicum 15:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mention in OED

By 1883, the Oxford English Dictionary included Kiev in a quotation.

That doesn't seem quite right, because the very first 352-page OED fascicle (A to Ant) was published in 1884. Does this actually mean "The Oxford English Dictionary cited Kiev in a quotation dated 1883"? Can someone quote the quotation? —Michael Z. 2007-09-16 05:38 Z

The OED 2nd has an entry for "Kievan, a. Also Kievian" but not Kiev. The first cited mention is in 1927 ("Kievian political power"), 1957 ("Kievan Russia"), 1959 ("Kievan State"), and 1965 ("Kievan period").
I may be able to check the additions and the online OED. —Michael Z. 2007-10-12 16:08 Z
I had a look a the three OED Additions (1993 and 1997), and the up-to-date full OED Online. The main entry for "Kievan" has not been revised yet (Third Edition has been working on letters M–P), and there is no addition of "Kiev".
However, Oxford's Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names has an entry for Kiev, but unfortunately it only briefly outlines the Slavic etymology, and not usage in English. The headword is in typical British form, with English and BGN/PCGN transliteration of the Ukrainian name: "Kiev (Kyyiv)".
The Canadian Oxford Dictionary does appear to have more toponyms, including a headword for "Kiev /'ki:ef/ (Ukrainian Kyiv /'ki:ɪf/)", but unfortunately no quotations. —Michael Z. 2007-10-15 23:09 Z

Kiev in American Encyclopaedia, 1874

Re, OED, we need to dig out the long history who and when added this or hit the library. Despite a PD, this dictionary does not seem to be online.

I just found another old source: The American Cyclopædia, Appleton, NY, 1874 LCCN 07-0 Google books link has an entry on Kiev. Perhaps worthy to add a citation. Also, the article is interesting both as a source on the city and of the time. I take a liberty to paste it in full here:

KIEV, II. A city, capital of the government, on the right bank of the Dnieper, 270 m. N. of Odessa; pop. in 1867, 70,591. It consists of four parts, the old town, the Petcherskoi or new fort, both on steep hills, the Podol or low town, between the hills and the river, and the Vladimir town, which was added to the former by the empress Catharine II.
The old town, which in the times preceding the conversion of the Russians to Christianity, under Vladimir the Great, was the principal seat of Sarmatian and Russian heathen worship, now contains, besides several other churches, the cathedral of St. Sophia, a magnificent structure of the llth century, and the palace of the Greek metropolitan. The fort contains the great Petcherskoi monastery from which it received its name, and which, together with the bastions and walls of the place, and the glittering gilt and colored cupolas of the churches on the neighboring eminences, makes a strong impression upon the traveller who approaches the city from the other side of the Dnieper.. This division embraces the barracks of the garrison, the arsenals and magazines, the houses of the officers, the palace of the governor, numerous churches, and the renowned catacombs of St. Anthony, consisting of exc avations in a precipitous cliff on the banks of the river, which attract numberless pilgrims from all parts of Russia through veneration for the saints whose bodies are there preserved. Adjoining are the catacombs of St. Theodosius, which contain a smaller number of saints. The Podol, which is the commercial part of the city, is regularly laid out, and embellished with gardens.
Kiev has a large university, founded in 1834, to which are attached a library and cabinets of medals, zoology, mineralogy, and botany. There are also various other institutions of learning, of which the Greek theological academy in the Petcherskoi monastery is the best endowed and most frequented.
The manufactures and trade of the city are not important. Railways connect it with Moscow and St. Petersburg, Odessa, and Lemberg. A magnificent bridge, recently constructed, spans the Dnieper.
The earliest history of Kiev is traced by some to the time of the Greek colonies near the N. coast of the Black sea ; others place its foundation in the 5th century. In the last quarter of the 9th century it became the residence of the princes of Novgorod. As the cap ital of Christianized Russia, it was adorned in the llth century with a great number of churches. After the middle of the 12th, however, it was deprived of its rank, and subsequently suffered by the devastations of the Tartars, the Lithuanian and Polish wars, the plague, and fires. After having been for about three centuries in the hands of the Poles, it was reannexed to Russia by the peace of 1667.

I hope this longish quote of PD text pasted to a talk page is not too annoying. Feel free to remove if it is. Just save the diff then. Cheers, --Irpen 09:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found this Verkhovna Rada web-site.

UKRAINIAN-ENGLISH TRANSLITERATION TABLE

On 19 April 1996, an official Ukrainian-English transliteration system was adopted by the Ukrainian Legal Terminology Commission (Decision N 9).

  • Use of the approved system is not mandatory for the transliteration of foreign names into Ukrainian.
  • Transliteration should be made directly between Ukrainian and English without the use of any intermediary languages.
  • Decision 9 9, in accordance with the Legal Terminology Commission s express authority, is binding only for the transliteration of Ukrainian names in English in legislative and official acts.
  • For brevity's sake, the system routinely allows for names such as the city of 'Zaporizhzhia' to be given as 'Zaporizhia,' 'L'viv' as 'Lviv,' etc. Also included is a short list of official spellings for miscellaneous terms: 'Ukraine' (no use of the article 'the'), 'Crimea' (as opposed to 'Krym'), 'Black Sea,' and 'Sea of Azov'. *In certain cases, 'traditional' forms may be shown in parentheses after the official form: 'Dnipro (Dnieper).'
  • In addition, apostrophe marks and softening marks may be omitted upon transliteration into English.

Ukrainian letter English letter Note Example

  • А А - Алушта - Alushta
  • Б B - Борщагівка - Borschahivka
  • В V - Вишгород - Vyshhorod
  • Г H, gh Н-in most cases, gh - when recreating the combination “зг” Гадяч - Hadiach;Згорани - Zghorany
  • Ґ G - Ґалаґан - Galagan
  • Д D - Дон - Don
  • Е E - Рівне - Rivne
  • Є Ye, ie Ye - at the beginning of words, іе - in other positions Єнакієве - Yenakiieve;Наєнко - Naienko
  • Ж Zh - Житомир - Zhytomyr
  • З Z - Закарпаття - Zakarpattia
  • И Y - Медвин - Medvyn
  • I I - Iршава - Irshava
  • Ї I Yi - at the beginning of words, і - in other positions Їжакевич - Yizhakevych;Кадіївка - Kadiivka
  • Й Y, i Y - at the beginning of words, і - in other positions Йосипівка - Yosypivka;Стрий - Stryi
  • К K - Київ - Kyiv
  • Л L - Лебедин - Lebedyn
  • М M - Миколаїв - Mykolaiv
  • Н N - Ніжин - Nizhin
  • О O - Одеса - Odesa
  • П P - Полтава - Poltava
  • Р R - Ромни - Romny
  • С S - Суми - Sumy
  • Т T - Тетерів - Teteriv
  • У U - Ужгород - Uzhhorod
  • Ф F - Фастів - Fastiv
  • Х Kh - Харків - Kharkiv
  • Ц Ts - Біла Церква - Bila Tserkva
  • Ч Ch - Чернівці - Chernivtsi
  • Ш Sh - Шостка - Shostka
  • Щ Sch - Гоща -Hoscha
  • Ь ‘ (see commentary) Русь - Rus’; Львів - L’viv
  • Ю Yu, iu Yu - at the beginning of words, iu - in other positions Юрій - Yurii;Крюківка - Krukivka
  • Я Ya, ia Ya - at the beginning of words, іа - in other positions Яготин - Yahotyn;Iчня - Ichnia
  • ‘ (apostrophe) “ (see commentary) Знам’янка - Znamianka

Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is another quote from the Constitution of Ukraine [2]. In Chapter I, Article 20 clearly states what the capital of Ukraine is. Are we going to diregard that?

Article 20

  • The state symbols of Ukraine are the State Flag of Ukraine, the State Coat of Arms of Ukraine and the State Anthem of Ukraine.
  • The State Flag of Ukraine is a banner of two equally-sized horizontal bands of blue and yellow.
  • The Great State Coat of Arms of Ukraine shall be established with the consideration of the Small State Coat of Arms of Ukraine and the Coat of Arms of the Zaporozhian Host, by the law adopted by no less than two-thirds of the constitutional compositio n of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
  • The main element of the Great State Coat of Arms of Ukraine is the Emblem of the Royal State of Volodymyr the Great (the Small State Coat of Arms of Ukraine).
  • The State Anthem of Ukraine is the national anthem set to the music of M. Verbytskyi, with words that are confirmed by the law adopted by no less than two-thirds of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
  • The description of the state symbols of Ukraine and the procedure for their use shall be established by the law adopted by no less than two-thirds of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
  • The capital of Ukraine is the City of Kyiv.

Here is the official postal address at the US embassy [3]. Please, pay attention to name of the link and the postal address. Here is the British embassy web-site in Ukraine [4]. Here is resolution of the Ukrainian commission for legal terminology No. 5, protocol no.1 of October 14, 1995 [5].

More[6]:

РІШЕННЯ


УКРАЇНСЬКОЇ КОМІСІЇ З ПИТАНЬ ПРАВНИЧОЇ ТЕРМІНОЛОГІЇ
No.9
Протокол No.2 від 19 квітня 1996 р.
Комісія, розглянувши на підставі п. 6 ч,4 Положення про Українську комісію з питань правничої термінології питання щодо затвердження таблиці для відтворення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови та правил до неї, спираючись на подання Інституту української мови НАН України, УХВАЛИЛА:
1. Затвердити як нормативну таблицю для відтворення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови та правила до неї (додається).
2. На підставі п. 7 Положення про Українську комісію з питань правничої термінології встановити, що нормативна таблиця застосовується при відторенні українських власних назв засобами англійської мови у законодавчих та офіційних актах.
3. Визначити, що роз'яснення щодо особливостей застосування таблиці та висновки щодо правильності її застосування надає Інститут українсчкої мови НАН України (за його згодою), із погодженням, у раці необхідності, з Комісією.
Голова Комісії, Міністр юстиції України
С. ГОЛОВАТИЙ
Відповідальний секретар Комісії
Ю. ЗАЙЦЕВ

Додаток до рішення No.9
української комісії з питань правничої термінології
протокол No.2 від 19 квітня 1996 р.
Нормативна таблиця для відтворення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови No. Укр. Літери Лат. Літери Примітки Приклади застосування


1 А A - Алушта Alushta
2 Б B - Борщагівка Borschahivka
3 В V - Вишгород Vyshhorod
4 Г H , gh Н - у більшості випадків Гадяч, Згорани Hadiach, Zghorany
5 Ґ G - Ґалаґан Galagan
6 Д D - Дон Don
7 Е E - Рівне Rivne
8 Є Ye , ie Ye - на початку слова, ie - в інших позиціях Єнакієве, Наєнко Yenakiieve, Naienko
9 Ж Zh - Житомир Zhytomyr
10 З Z - Закарпаття Zakarpattia
11 И Y - Медвин Medvyn
12 І I - Іршава Irshava
13 Ї I Yi - на початку слова, I - в інших позиціях Їжакевич, Кадіївка Yizhakevych, Kadiivka
14 Й Y , i Y - на початку слова, i - в інших позиціях Йосипівка, Стрий Yosypivka, Stryi
15 К K - Київ Kyiv
16 Л L - Лебедин Lebedyn
17 М M - Миколаїв Mykolaiv
18 Н N - Ніжин Nizhyn
19 О O - Одеса Odesa
20 П P - Полтава Poltava
21 Р R - Ромни Romny
22 С S - Суми Sumy
23 Т T - Тетерів Teteriv
24 У U - Ужгород Uzhhorod
25 Ф F - Фастів Fastiv
26 Х Kh - Харків Kharkiv
27 Ц Ts - Біла Церква Bila Tserkva
28 Ч Ch - Чернівці Chernivtsi
29 Ш Sh - Шостка Shostka
30 Щ Sch - Гоща Hoscha
31 Ь ' - Русь, Львів Rus', L'viv
32 Ю Yu , iu Yu - на початку слова, iu - в інших позиціях Юрій, Крюківка Yurii, Kriukivka
33 Я Ya , ia Ya - на початку слова, ia - в інших позиціях Яготин, Ічня Yahotyn, Ichnia
34 ' ia - Знам'янка Znamianka

Правила відтворення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови
1. Вітворення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови відбуваєтчся з їх української форми, записаної відповідно до чинного правопису, без посередництва будь-якої іншої мови.
2. Відтоврення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови відбувається шляхом транслітерації (політерного перезапису за допомогою латинського алфавіту). Міжмовні алфавітні відповідники подано в нормативаній таблиці, коментар до якої наведено нижче.
3. Вимоги цих правл не обов'язкові для запису українських імен іноземних громадян. Коментар до нормативної таблиці: У певних сферах відтворення українських власних назв вживається спрощений варіант запису, що передбачає:
а) орфографічне спрощення громіздкого подвоення приголосних ж, х, ц, ч, ш, які відтворюються буквосполученнями zh, kh, ts, ch, sh, наприклад, Запоріжжя -- Zaporizhia,
б) апостроф і знак м'якшення (за винятком буквосполучень -ьо-, -ьї-, що завжди передаються як -'o, 'i-) у спрощеній транслітерації не відтворюються.
Приклади:
Українська форма: Спрощення транслітерація: Точна транслітерація:
Львів Lviv L'viv
Ананьїв Ananiv Anan'iv
Стеф'юк Stefiuk Stef’iuk
Koрoп’є Koropie Korop’ie
Голова Комісії, Міністр юстиції України
С. ГОЛОВАТИЙ
Відповідальний секретар комісії
Ю.ЗАЙЦЕВ

РОЗ'ЯСНЕННЯ


щодо особливостей застосування нормативної таблиці для відтворення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови
1. Звичайно застосовується спрощена транслітерація. Точна транслітерація вживається тільки в окремих випадках і за погодженням з Українською комісією з питань правничої термінології та Інститутом української мови НАН Україин.
2. Зберігають традиційне написання такі власні назви:
Ukraine (вживається без артикля the)
Crimea
Black Sea
Sea of Azov
3. В окремих випадках і за умов, коли це не суперечить правилам оформлення відповідного документа, транслітерована власна назва може дублюватися у дужках традиційним написанням, наприклад: Dnipro (Dnieper)
Голова Української Комісії з питань правничої термінології
С. ГОЛОВАТИЙ
Директор Інституту української мови НАН України
О. ТАРАНЕНКО
Запити та пропозиції щодо інших особливостей застосування нормативної таблиці направляти у письмовому вигляді до Української комісії з питань правличої термінології (252033, Київ, вул. Саксаганського, 41) та до Інституту Української мови НАН України (252001, Київ, МСН, вул. Грушевського, 4).

You know, there are laws that suggest the spelling of the words. Is that crazy? None the less, people still keep on searching for stuff that certaintly will not be there due to strict censorship in times of the Soviet government. No one calls Ukraine Ukrainian SSR any longer or some other crazy names that they have for it in 1874. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The article is a good, solid B-class article, but does not currently meet the Good Article criteria, and will not be listed at this time.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Most obviously, the article is largely insufficiently referenced. There are large sections of the article with zero sources, and many more with only one. **Everything** doesn't **have** to be cited for GA criteria, but at a minimum, the article should provide inline citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons.

The reference citation list is also not formatted properly. Citations should include full citation information (e.g. author, title, publisher, date of publication, and date of retrieval if a web link is available). This is so that, if a web link should become unavailable (404 not found), readers can still verify the source through other means and the reference is not totally useless. I would recommend taking a look at WP:CITE for information on how to use inline citations in articles.

The article prose can be choppy at times, and somewhat difficult to read. Minor words, like "the", or commas, are often missing. A good copyedit would be recommended. It would help to review the manual of style as well.

The lead could use some work. It's not bad, but the third paragraph seems to go on and on about the history, and isn't very short and concise. Some of this material could go into the history section, and only the major facts should be included. The lead section should contain a good, clear, and concise summary of the article, and should almost be able to stand on its own without the rest of the article, if the reader chooses to only read the lead. It would help to review WP:LEAD for tips on improving this section. Oh, and the image in the infobox is copyrighted; I believe the copyright tag is good, but it doesn't have a fair-use rationale. I don't really understand what, "Should be PD as 'news' by UA law, but fairuse for now." means? Nice image, though! ;-)

I would recommend a better organization of sections, at least for the beginning. After the lead, start with 'etymology' (move the contents of 'city name evolution' to 'etymology', since that's what it is). Then, put history, followed by geography (rename 'environment' to 'geography', and eliminate the first unnecessary subsection header there), then 'demographics', and then 'economy'. I'd put 'culture' after that, followed by 'sports' (move sports to its own main section, as it can stand on its own outside of culture), and then 'government', 'education', and 'transportation' at the end.

You might want to add some details on the cityscape (streets & neighborhoods) to the geography section.

What about talking about some of the local politics and the interactions of the mayor and city council with the citizens. BTW, who's the mayor? While it's generally unnecessary to list the entire members of the city council, if it's very large, some of the key officers are generally important. Maybe also include some information on national legislative representatives, too.

The demographics section looks good, and reasonably well referenced (although the ethnic group figures are unsourced). I also would find it interesting to have an explanation for the huge drop in population around WWII and its subsequent rise back to over a million in the decade that followed?

I would eliminate the 'modern kiev' title and simply call this 'culture'. The language really should be cleaned up, and there are no sources. Watch for weasel words and flowery language in the culture section. Things like, "hip nightclubs, classy restaurants and prestigious hotels". While it's still written in prose, a lot of the information on cultural attractions is really just a list in disguise, and more information could be added to spruce this up a bit. Also, what about including some information about any annual cultural events or fairs in the city? Don't forget to include sources and references for information in this section, either.

The 'tourism' section should probably be merged partially with the culture section, and partially with economy, if tourism is a significant aspect of the economy. Remember, wikipedia is not a tourist guide, and text should focus on the encyclopedic nature of information.

There's a couple of 'see also' links in several sections that link to categories, and not individual articles. This is generally discouraged and these 'see also' links should ideally go to a separately linked article. For example, if the culture section has a lot of info, link to See also: Culture in Kiev.

There are two galleries of images (culture and tourism) that really don't seem to contribute much to the article in its position, as they're just images. I would recommend taking the best images and using them within the text of the article, to help talk about various cultural attractions. If there are a lot of images, any that aren't used in the text could be added to a 'gallery' section at the end of the article, but before the 'see also' and 'references' sections.

Since there's not really that many external links, it probably isn't necessary to separate them into subsections. Also, any links that are used as inline citations, need not be linked at the bottom under 'external links', since they'll fall under 'references' instead. Review WP:EL for tips on including external links in sections and keeping the amount of linkspam down.

Hope this review helps to improve the article up to GA status. Please renominate it once the issues are addressed. Cheers! Dr. Cash 05:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling error

Can a registered user please correct the spelling of the word "similar" in the reference for the spelling Kyjevъ? Due to the semi-protected status of this article, unregistered users like myself can't make trivial edits such as this. Thanks, 60.242.0.245 12:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that whole part of the reference has been removed. Just to check - the similarity mentioned in the older reference was between the spelling in the Chronicle compared to modern Ukrainian, as opposed to Russian, wasn't it? Or was it about the Latin transliterations of each spelling? 60.242.0.245 (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So make an account :). Bogdan що? 14:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What, and be accused of having a Single-Purpose Account when I make my first edit? ;) Though I've noted a few other spelling errors in the article, so I may do so soon..Have you an opinion on the recently truncated reference?60.242.0.245 (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm...not sure I know what you're talking about. PS, is that you Horlo? Bogdan що? 21:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the above larrikinism. This IP address has an editing history, from edits by myself and others under the same IP; I continue to use it for this reason. No Horlos reside here though, Bogdan. I've twice been mistaken for Horlo, but he lives in Canada.
The Kyjevъ reference has been changed[7] (other than just having the spelling fixed), on the grounds of the relative similarity between spelling being dubious. I was wondering if Къıєвъ was being compared to Київ and Киев, or if the transliterations (Kyiev, Kyiv and Kiev) were being compared. Could Alex Kov, Reginmund, Ceriy or anybody else explain this please?
Thanks,60.242.0.245 (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image galleries

I would suggest removing the image galleries of the article (Kiev#Architectural monuments and Kiev#Views of Kiev) as they take up too much space and are bulky. I understand that all of these images are needed to the article, but let's not get every important image into the article.. Any comments? —dima/talk/ 19:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better if we left the Architectural gallery and removed the "Views of Kiev" one. As architecture is it's own section while "Views of Kiev" are mere images, without much importance to the article. Regards, Bogdan що? 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I though about that option as well. —dima/talk/ 23:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove the "View of Kiev" gallery right now as there were no more comments about it. —dima/talk/ 19:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian name

The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses...Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages.

— Wikipedia:NCGN

Regards, Bogdan що? 16:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, you need to show that the Russian name in Cyrillic alphabet is relevant (either because this Cyrillic name is used by at least 10% of English sources, or that the place was used to be inhabited by Russians). Second, read the policy completely: "Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section". --Greggerr (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Russian name is relevant, as is the Polish name, given the influence from those two countries on the recent (last few hundred years) history of the city. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible OR in "Power production" section

Ladies and gentlemen, the section looks amusingly absurdous for me. Kiev, as with most settlements in Ukraine, is supplied with electricity by the national grid (like it was redundantly stated in the section). To the best of my humble knowledge, the "grid" means that no particular power station is relevant more than the others. Not to mention the "power supply in the form of natural gas, piped from..." :) Thus, the whole section is probably an original research.

On the other hand, we may want to describe the energy industry in the city. Which would lead us to a pretty different picture: in fact there are several power stations inside Kiev, owned by the city community and even foreign investors. Even that stinky trash-burning company is a minor energy producer, hence the "Energiya" name :) So we might, or might not, reflect all this in the main city article. Anyway, Economy of Kiev is the ultimate place for such information. I hope to get there some day. Thanks, Ukrained (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

The whole "Economy" section of this article desperately needs expansion and updating rewriting within current size. I'm sure that significant number of "new" Kievans have never even heard of all those Soviet industrial giants :) But they must be very fond of booming construction industry, PFTS stock exchange, or at least Troyeschyna bazar :) Ukrained (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it all across, gentlemen. Ukrained (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the section needs a major rewrite and revamping.. If you want, go ahead and fix it up.. —dima/talk/ 23:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural monuments

I think the definite article "the" should be removed from the following captions:

-The St. Michael's Golden-Domed Cathedral, 1998 reconstruction.
-The St. Andrew's Church
-The St Volodymyr's Cathedral (and for consistency, maybe put a full stop {.} after the St)

Could a registered user look into that please? Thanks, 60.242.0.245 (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thank you for mentioning this detail. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to Kyiv (February 2008)

The original text of this discussion is found here. The debate took place between February 10 and February 22, 2008, and its result was no consensus.
In accordance to the talk page split of August 2007, the text has been moved to Talk:Kiev/naming (diff. diff.). - Ev (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect atribution

The line "In the Ukrainian language itself, the name of the city was pronounced Kiev until only about 100 years ago." does not match the source (http://www.infoukes.com/faq/kyiv-2/), where the author states "The spelling Kyiv (Kyyiv) has been used in Ukrainian for only about the last century". This is a statement about the English spelling, not pronunciation. BTW, I do not discuss it the (original) sentence makes any sense whatsoever or the author is an expert enough to be quoted about the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.93.99 (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a statement about the Cyrillic spelling, unless our anon is claiming that Ukrainian used the Latin alphabet in 1900. I don't see where English comes into it; we never have used Cyrillic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Septentrionalis, I think you are actually agreeing with this editor, as he or she was saying that the source was interpreted incorrectly. As you are registered (and the article is semi-protected), do you want to have a close look and see if the statement with source (http://www.infoukes.com/faq/kyiv-2/) should be modified or cut, as it has nothing to do with pronunciation?60.242.0.245 (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The primary name of the article is very important, as it is the first thing a reader sees. However, the rest of the article needs to be looked after too: grammatical issues that can be found at Talk:Kyiv#Architectural_monuments were raised by myself seventeen days ago, and have not been corrected by any of the registered users - neither the 'regulars', nor those who added their voices to this talk page once the rename was requested. Also, if one reads Talk:Kyiv#incorrect_atribution, they will come across another error which is yet to be corrected. Can a registered user please look into this?

Thanks, 60.242.0.245 (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both done. Thanks for bringing this up. --Irpen 07:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate that.60.242.0.245 (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the captions of the images still need to be fixed. Almost all of the leading articles constitute bad English grammar. I pointed this out at Talk:Kyiv#Architectural_monuments.60.242.0.245 (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thank you for mentioning this detail. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ev.60.242.0.245 (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Education section picture

Given Kiev National Taras Shevchenko University is the first institution mentioned, any good reason to keep Irpen's deletion/replacement with a 1911 picture versus Greggerr's picture of the University?. -PētersV (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, why should the section about the general education of the city be illustrated by the image of just one educational institution, especially, since we in Kiev are lucky to have a very notable historic building that connects to the city's education in general? This architectural masterpiece, constructed specifically as a Pedagogical Museum has a lot of exciting things connected with it. After being constructed as a Pedagogical Museum, the building was a stage of several hugely important political events (I will write an article on its history one day) and now it again is devoted to the education purposes being the city's Teachers' House. Additionally (but note that this is not the sole reason), the two university pics have problems. --Irpen 20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kyiv Shevchenko University is the leading University not only in Kyiv, but in Ukraine. Kyiv Mohyla Academy is the oldest, and in historical prospective, one of the most influential. On the other hand, the connection of the Pedagogical Museum to education is minor, and the building is the most known not as Pedagogical Museum, but due to political reasons as Tsentralna Rada building (and one day there will be an article written about that building). --Greggerr (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll?

The 1911 building of the "Pedagogical Museum", currently the Kiev Teacher's House.
File:NaUKMA today.JPG
The main entrance to the Kyiv Mohyla Academy, one of the oldest and most influential educational centers in Ukrainian history.
The National Taras Shevchenko University, the leading University in Ukraine.

Well, I am glad you are familiar with this building's history. Also, note, that it was built as a Pedagogical Museum and is now again a city's Teacher's House.

I propose a straw poll photo is better for the city education section as long as it is too short to accommodate more than one image.

IMO, the museum's photo is better as it is more historic and more interesting, shows an architectural masterpiece, a historical significant building to refer to in other section of the article, and a professional work. --Irpen 06:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that the photo you brought in is controversial and offensive to Ukrainians? How many in the Russian Empire were getting education in their native language? What was the "prosveschenie" about? That Ukrainians are "Russian people". But we are not. We have got our language, and were close to get a country in 1917-20. I'm assuming your good fate, but I know you are smart not to notice the underlying meaning of the photo you brought in.

You know that your postcard is no way the best illustration for the 'Education' section. The building is of marginal importance for education. City articles are about city characteristics, not just history. There is a section on history, and your Podol photo is acceptable for this. But except the history section, the rest of the article covers modern characteristics. Black and white 100 year old photo is not a representation of modern education. It's an interesting photo, and it is a must in the article about the building in pair with the current photo, but pushing it into Kiev is too far.

The straw poll? Will it be "Russian people" vs. Eastern Europeans? You are here the one who is pushing a controversial photo. Probably in this particular issue you need to step back. --Greggerr (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't pretend that you speak for all Ukrainians when you say that photo is "controversial and offensive to Ukrainians", this is outright nonsense. The narrow nationalist slice of the tolerant Ukrainian nation should not usurp the right to speak for the entire people. Ukrainians are not offended at all, except of a small part who make up this non-existing "offense" just to push the change they like to see.--Miyokan (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You pretend to know the general attitude of people in Kiev? Based on what? On what you are shown on your Russian TV? From year to year the tolerant Ukrainian nation becames increasingly intolerant, given the imperialistic attitude of the narrow nationalist slice which is usurping the Russian society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggerr (talk • contribs)
Indeed, Greggerr, please cut the nonsense? Who is becoming intolerant? What offensive? To who Ukrainians? Who are "we"? You? Me? DDima? Please do not speak on behalf of "the Ukrainians". And don't do the rest of us a disservice portraying us intolerant. I don't know about Miyokan, but I do have the knowledge about the general attitude of people in Kiev. And it is not anywhere close to a fringe view your are trying to assign to Kievans. You claim that you "speak for Ukrainians" is no more valid than that of Yanukovych or even Vitrenko.
Further, this is not the article about the Ukrainian education. This is the section about the education in Kiev. "Controversial photo" is your invention. Probably in this particular issue you are best to stay on topic and don't tell me what to do. I am asking for opinions and arguments. What's wrong with asking for feedback? You are the one here trying to turn this into an ethnic match. I am interested in opinion of other editors, preferably devoid of ethnic talk of any kind. If this discussion brings in the bunch of the usual following crowd, it would be unfortunate, but it is easy to see whose opinion here is most informed and valuable. There were very few editors who made more than 20 edits to this article overall and still remain active. Those editors are DDima, Mzajac, Kuban, Bogdan, Ukrained, you (if edits from all your accounts are added up) and myself. If this discussion instead gets hijacked by outsiders, it would be less valuable. --Irpen 09:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, you seem to dislike the growing support of Tyahnybok's Svoboda. But you are bringing a photo of Red Army march in Lviv. You are bringing a photo with the monarchist statement. What do you expect in response? There is a number of photos which you find controversial and offensive.
If if I were to represent a minority, what does it really change? Are you advocating for a respect of a minority or advocating for ignoring it? There are different minorities in Ukraine. --Greggerr (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Tyahnybok, I don't even pay attention to how much support he gets. It can never become large enough to matter to me precisely because the majority of Ukrainians always rejected and I daresay will reject the ultra-nationalist rhetoric. If you want to know what political developments in Ukraine I dislike we can have this fascinating discussion elsewhere but please do not put things in my mouth.

BAck to the image, I am not sure about the monarchist statement. If you check the sources on the building in question, it was built on the charitable contributions of prominent Kievans. The museum was international and multicultural, just like Kiev was and remained through its history.

For the Red Army in Lviv pic, you could have asked in another article, but I would satisfy your curiosity. The 1939 unification of Ukraine (for the first time ever) was an event of the epochal significance in its history. Many historians agree on that and I think such an event deserves the image. What image is best, we could discuss. You chose, instead, to sneakily nominate it for deletion. From my past experience with you this was unsurprising. Now you are trying a different trick, to claim the image's being offensive out of thin air. You tried to pull that card in the discussion of the hero city template and many other times.

If this museum was indeed offensive to Kievans, I am sure it was said somewhere. This could certainly be a valid argument but not if it comes from a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor. Some find the very name of the city "offensive" and some may even consider the Latin characters "offensive". Now, please keep this discussion on topic.

Thank you for bringing in the third image. Now, let's let others provide their opinions. I am particularly interested in the opinions of editors who spend much effort to build this article but of course anyone's opinion may be helpful. --Irpen 11:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About your statement of the 1939 "unification" and whatever historians you have mentioned. I know for the fact that people of the western part of Ukraine perceive this act in diffrent perspective. And that is not a minority. Recently on Inter (Ukrainian TV station) there was a movie about two Ukrainian that were fighting Germans, one from Kharkiv, another from Lviv. It truly reflects the opinion of the Ukrainian population in that regard. I apologize that I cannot recall the name of the movie at this time. Coincidently this "unification" happened at the start of the World War II and can also be perceived as the initiation of the last as some of the other annexations that took place at that time: Finland, Bukovina, Baltic states etc. I wonder why no one addresses that issue. And what is up with the law that Russia has passed to outlaw justification of it war crimes. Are we to believe that the Soviet Union was all that pure? Well, just a food for thought... Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote #3

I'm going for the "anyone's opinion" category:

When considering both the current and historic significance of the buildings, as well as the suitability and aesthetics of their pictures, the Mohyla Academy seems to win out. A possible problem is that it could be seen as non-representative, due to its relatively low number of enrollments (it's now an 'exclusive' centre of learning). The pedagogical museum is quite interesting architecturally, but lacks current significance relative to the others. Kyiv University is of course very relevant, though a scaled-down photo of that building may not be the best choice for the article (it looks quite monochromatic, especially in a small image).


  • Just a question: What does Khotyn Fortress has to do with Kiev? Why is that in the article? It is in totaly different part of Ukraine!
Absolutely no idea.. I removed it. Thanks for notifying, ddima.talk 01:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

russian name

what is the point of having the russian name if there is a link to the name in other languages article (which russian is in)? Ostap 20:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean in the introduction? The Ukrainian name is also shown, and it is also in the other languages article. I would assume it is because Russian and Ukrainian are the main languages of Kyiv/Kiev, and it is common to give the name of a city in its native/most widely-spoken languages (as well as English) in the introduction of an article. Regards, EJF (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no - it is common to show what the average English speaker would find least surprising. Just do a google search for "capital of Ukraine", ignore all of the invitations to find a mate, and you will see that Kyiv is more common. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prose needs toning down

This article reads like a travel brochure. I'd fix it myself, but I'm on the road.79.188.24.234 (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to Kyiv (September 2008)

Section's original title: "Request to move to official name".
Discussion moved to the designated page per message on top. --Irpen 21:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original text of this discussion is found here. The debate took place between September 23 and September 30, 2008, and its result was No move.
In accordance to the talk page split of August 2007, the text has been moved to Talk:Kiev/naming (diff. diff.), as Irpen mentioned above. - Ev (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In accordance to the talk page split of August 2007, discussion on the article's name should take place at Talk:Kiev/naming. - Ev (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article should be Kyiv and not Kiev. Following independence, the official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian, and is spoken by the majority of people living there. The name in English should reflect this. Adochka (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its commonname in the English language is Kiev not Kyiv - therefore per WP:COMMONNAME it should stay as Kiev.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the discussion in the appropriate section as noted above. This has been debated repeatedly. Personally I support Kyiv but find I cannot do so (yet) from an editorial English common-usage standpoint. PetersV       TALK 17:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think in this case, using the CN form is borderline revisionism, seeing as the US, EU, and UN all recognize the spelling as Kyiv now.--Lvivske (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kyiv apartments fell in price twice

says this article. Should this be mentioned in this article or is it to detailed information? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture in infobox

I see that the last hours we had 3 different pictures of Kyiv in the infobox. Somehowe I think the current picture of Besarabsky Market is not the best way to represent Kyiv... Should we have some sort of vote on this? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Kiev).jpg
I would prefer this one myself, it has got Maidan (the most important square) and a part of Khreschatyk (the most important street) on it
I would agree with a photo of Maidan Nezalezhnosti. In modern Ukraine, it is the most recognizable image of modern Kyiv and, because of the Orange Revolution, calls to mind a major "national moment". The monument to Independence is especially recognizable as being "Kyiv". A distant second would be a photo of St Michael's. But both photos have rhetorical value--a photo of St Michael's is a look back at the city's past, a photo of Maidan Nezalezhnosti is a look forward at the city's present and future. (Taivo (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Done! I'm a bit fed up with pictures who make Kyiv look like a German city or random post-Soviet city... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like this!

I see that New York City and London and other city articles use montages-pictures in the infobox. Mabey that is a good idea for this Kiev article. It could stop the neverending chances of pictures (of latley). I have no idea why the current picure is seen as more typical Kiev then a picture of Maidan. I hope it is not some anti-Orange Revolution statment, I was in favour of a Maidan picture cause it is known most in English speaking country's (I do believe).

I propose a montage including

  • Maidan
  • Caves monastry
  • Sophie Cathedral
  • The big WWII lady
  • St Michael's church

What do you think? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, no. The photo should be Maidan, preferrably with the Independence Monument in view. That is the image of modern Kyiv that is most "Ukrainian" right now. (Taivo (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Variags???

File:Founders of Kiev.jpg
Founders of Kyiv, 1982

Since when Kyi, Schek, and Khoryv became Variags??? Who claims that? That is a bad example of a theory. The name of statue in Kyiv commemorates the Founders of the City, not Variags. Why are you putting a wrong name of the statue and reflecting false impressions? That is crazy! First of all the name of the statue has no relevance to Variags and second of all only a few historians relate Kyi, Schek, and Khoryv to that ethnicity stating that it could be false. So why won't simply put the real name of the statue instead of self-conscienciously renaming it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project to achieve GA/FA?

A lot of energy has been spent discussing naming—I'd suggest instead that we put the proverbial stake in the ground and agree to work toward the necessary improvements in the article to achieve GA/FA. The easiest is to look around for other articles about cities which are rated GA or FA.
 

Outline of Kiev

  1. Environment
    1. Geography
    2. Climate
  2. History
  3. Government
    1. Subdivisions
      1. Formal subdivision
      2. Informal subdivision
  4. Demographics
  5. Modern Kiev
    1. Culture
      1. Sports
      2. Architecture
      3. Architectural monuments
  6. Transportation
    1. Local transportation
    2. Suburban transportation
    3. Railways
    4. Air transport
    5. Roads
  7. Sites of interest
  8. Tourism
    1. Attractions in Kiev
  9. Economy
  10. Education
  11. City name evolution
  12. International relations
    1. Twin towns — Sister cities
  13. See also
  14. References
  15. External links

Outline of London, GA

  1. History
  2. Governance
    1. Local government
    2. National government
  3. Geography
    1. Scope
    2. Status
    3. Topography
    4. Climate
    5. Districts
  4. Cityscape
  5. Demography
    1. Ethnic groups
    2. Religion
  6. Economy
    1. Architecture
    2. Parks and gardens
  7. Society and culture
    1. Accent
    2. Leisure and entertainment
    3. Literature and film
    4. Museums and Art Galleries
    5. Music
    6. Sport
  8. Transport
    1. Railways
    2. Buses
    3. Air
    4. Roads
  9. Education
  10. Twin cities
  11. See also
  12. References
  13. Further reading
  14. External links

Outline of Johannesburg, FA

  1. History
  2. Government
  3. Crime
  4. Geography and climate
  5. Demographics
  6. Cityscape
    1. Architecture
    2. Parks and gardens
    3. Residential Areas
  7. Economy
    1. Retail
  8. Communications and media
  9. Music
  10. Suburbs
  11. Tourism
  12. Sports teams and stadiums
  13. Transport
    1. Airports
    2. Freeways
    3. Taxis
    4. Mass transit
      1. Trains
      2. Buses
        1. Bus Rapid Transit
  14. Education and Culture
    1. Museums in Johannesburg
      1. AECI Dynamite Factory Museum
      2. Adler Museum of Medicine
      3. Apartheid museum
      4. Constitution Hill
      5. Hector Peterson Museum
      6. James Hall Transport Museum
      7. Madiba Freedom Museum
      8. Museum Africa
      9. Origins Centre Museum
      10. Bernberg Fashion Museum
      11. South African National Museum of Military History
      12. Zoology Museum
  15. Sister cities
  16. Notes
  17. References
  18. See also
  19. External links

Perhaps we can reorder the sections—for example, do geography and climate really belong at top?—and then work from there. Also, if we do decide to communally apply ourselves I'd suggest archiving most of the talk here and leaving only the threads that apply to the original GA review. Kiev is more than deserving of our efforts here. While there's been progress, there's also been contentiousness—and we have not had a specific goal to work toward. I think the Johannesburg outline would do us well and help organize our efforts to address areas where the current article is deficient in content. Anyway, my thoughts having viewed Kiev over quite some time now. PētersV       TALK 18:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv vs Kiev

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

thank you

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

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

Wikipedia is not the official mouthpiece of the Rada. Only common English usage matters and the common English spelling of Kyiv is still Kiev. That is the guiding principle of Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Well this is an instance again where b.s. editors are wrong. If a country has come out and said this is the way we want our english translations to slavic words it should be respected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.50.80 (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Agree, I will add a short, but impressive list of facts of why it is spelled as Kyiv in English language:
1) Ukrainian government insists on Kyiv spelling
2) The State Department of the U.S. issued a directive to write Kyiv
3) The Prime Minister of the U.K. calls the city Kyiv - http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20199
4) United Nations Multilingual Terminology Database (the ultimate body on geographical names) approved it as Kyiv - http://unterm.un.org/dgaacs/unterm.nsf/WebView/B57BF6AB5F06749B85256DC700440AAD?OpenDocument
5) Major English speaking governments worldwide switched to Kyiv spelling
6) CIA refers to the city as Kyiv - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/up.html
7) The name of the famous football club is Dynamo Kyiv (recognised worldwide)
8) Many papers, e.g., British The Guardian, are already writing Kyiv
9) All major Canadian media already use the spelling of Kyiv
10) and many more reasons and references on http://kyiv.of-cour.se/
Let's initiate another discussion and make the final change. We have waited too long already. (Markiyan (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are all irrelevant to the discussion. Wikipedia is not the mouthpiece of any government or governmental agency. The only relevant facts are common English usage, not official English. And your number 10 is a link to a website from which you have copied this list verbatim without any further "reasons or references". It remains to be seen whether enough modern reliable sources are using "Kyiv" at this time to make the change. (Taivo (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
By the way, what is your relationship to the website at this address? (Taivo (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

(outdent) In case you haven't read it, here is the discussion and result the last time the issue was thoroughly discussed (Sep 2008): [8]. Before you continue on, you should familiarize yourself with the issues and not repeat them here. (Taivo (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Template:Capitals of Ukraine

How about a Template:Capitals of Ukraine? Interesting for foreigners I presume! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 11:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there has been only one capital of Ukraine--Kyiv. That is, unless you count all the temporary towns where the twentieth century revolutionaries lived for a week or two. Ukraine as a country has only existed since 1991. The pre-Mongol "country" wasn't Ukraine, it was Kievan Rus, that is, the predecessor to all the East Slavic peoples, not to modern Ukraine. The Princes of Kiev merged into the Grand Dukes of Moscow. (Taivo (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
 I started. Be bold! It's very difficult for moskal. =)) -- TarzanASG (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the proposed template thoroughly confusing - nothing is in date order - the references are to different entities - and it misses out the Zaporozhian Sich. The template is pushing a point of view on the history of this area - and this is deeply political and unbacked by citations. Wikipedia is meant to have a neutral point of view, and to have citations given for information, especially for controversial information

I looked at some of articles on towns in the template. Some have no citations whatsoever. It would be better effort were put into adding citations to these articles on supposed 'capitals of Ukraine'.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move

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

Results of September 2008 Renaming Survey

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

Survey

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

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

Evidence collection: usage in English-language texts

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

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

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

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

I completely concur and have removed the survey from the proposal for now. Once data have been assembled and we are ready, I'll repost the survey and we can gauge where consensus might (or might not) stand. (Taivo (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
It is a noble effort, you have spent a great deal of time on this, in the end, the article name will remain as is per my note at the bottom. If we are driven by a love for Kiev, then we should put our energies toward getting the article to GA or FA, not yet another debate on naming. (This should be moved to the Naming sub-page where this has all been discussed in painful detail before.) VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 17:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the futility of all naming debates here. Rather than moving every debate to the naming sub-page immediately after closure, perhaps we should leave the last debate in situ until the next one starts. That way it's easier to see for casual browsers who might want to engage in the next round. (Taivo (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Official institutions in and of English-speaking countries

I.e., governmental bodies in English-speaking countries. Also those of English-speaking countries acting in Ukraine.

Australia
Canada
India
Ireland
New Zealand
United Kingdom
United States

English-language newspapers and news websites

United States
United Kingdom
Australia
Ireland
Canada

Works of general reference: encyclopaedias, standard histories

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

Although the identical numbers might lead one to think they were duplicate lists (with text such as "Kiev, or Kyiv" (or vice versa)), they are not duplicate lists. Most of the 10 titles in each list are unique to that list. It's just coincidence that they are exactly the same length. (Taivo (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Chronicle of Higher Education (uses an odd "intelligent" system of constraining searches so "Kiev" can be constrained for articles occurring within the last year but not within the last 3 years, but "Kyiv" can only be constrained for articles within the last 3 years): Kiev 2 (within the last year, both written by Americans), Kyiv 1 (within the last 3 years, from June 2008, written by a Ukrainian) (Taivo (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This source is actually a news and opinion source, but it relates completely to academia, so it properly belongs here, I think. (Taivo (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Major international organisations

Major English-speaking organisations

Other Relevant History/Geography Media

Miscellaneous Relevant Numbers

Discussion

At this point, the evidence shows:

1) The news sources surveyed strongly favor "Kiev", in some cases by an overwhelming majority of instances. "Kyiv" is not always the most recent usage. One Canadian newspaper gives equal weight between "Kiev" and "Kyiv"
2) Encyclopedias have not been thoroughly surveyed. The four listed are split between "Kiev" and "Kyiv".
3) The academic sources surveyed generally favor "Kiev" with a few split between "Kiev" and "Kyiv". The academic sources tend to have a low number of hits to compare.
4) International organizations have not been widely surveyed. The one source favors "Kiev".
5) The two American scientific organizations favor "Kiev". The other two organizations listed do not really favor either.
6) The two American educational channels overwhelmingly favor "Kiev".
7) The data from Google Books strongly favor "Kiev".

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

I have suggested in the past we simply use BGN as the impartial third party. As long as they have an entry in their database specifically stating there is a special case that "Kiev" is standard English usage, we should observe that. When that changes, we rename the article, plain and simple. Anything else will degenerate into the usual. I've been occupied elsewhere, I see my suggestion for doing Kiev justice to go GA or FA lies completely fallow—if a tenth of the energy were spent on article content that has been wasted on Kiev vs. Kyiv, we'd have something we could all truly point to with pride. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 17:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with BGN is that it coesn't have a conventional field as often as it really should; for example, it doesn't have one for Frankfurt. When it does have one, we should follow it - unless ambiguity makes that impractical. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're not quite correct, Frankfurt am Main (BGN Standard) indicates Frankfurt as the (Short) version, hence no requirement for a conventional common English usage exception. (And Frankfurt is also BGN Standard for the other Frankfurt.)  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Including Short forms would be a different proposal. I suspect it will still diverge from normal English usage for such places as Brixen, and that it will give multiple answers quite often; but we don't need to decide such things here; try WT:NCGN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relevant Wikipedia Policy

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

From General Guidelines: "The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it."
From Use English: "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This will often be identical in form to the local name (as with Paris or Berlin), but in many cases it will differ (Germany rather than Deutschland, Rome rather than Roma, Hanover rather than Hannover, Meissen rather than Meißen). If a native name is more often used in English sources than a corresponding traditional English name, then use the native name. An example is Livorno, which is now known more widely under its native name than under the traditional English name "Leghorn"."
From Widely Accepted Name: "A name can be considered as widely accepted if a neutral and reliable source states: "X is the name most often used for this entity". Without such an assertion, the following methods (not listed in any particular order) may be helpful in establishing a widely accepted name (period will be the modern era for current names; the relevant historical period for historical names):
  1. Consult English-language encyclopedias (we recommend Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, each as published after 1993). If the articles in these agree on using a single name in discussing the period, it is the widely accepted English name.
    • One reason for 1993 is to ensure that post-Cold War changes in usage are duly reflected; other (especially later) limiting dates may be appropriate in some parts of the world.
  2. Consult Google Scholar and Google Books hits (count only articles and books, not number of times the word is used in them) when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question. If the name of the location coincides with the name of another entity, care should be taken to exclude inappropriate pages from the count. If the name is used at least three times as often as any other, in referring to the period, it is widely accepted.
    • Always look at search results, don't just count them. For more, see the section on search engines below.
  3. Consult other standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question. (We recommend the Cambridge Histories; the Library of Congress country studies, and the Oxford dictionaries relevant to the period and country involved). If they agree, the name is widely accepted. The possibility that some standard histories will be dated, or written by a non-native speaker of English, should be allowed for.
  4. Consult major news sources, either individually, or by using Lexis-Nexis, if accessible. If they agree in using a given name, it is widely accepted."
From BGN: "The United States Board on Geographic Names determines official Federal nomenclature for the United States. Most often, actual American usage follows it, even in such points as the omission of apostrophes, as in St. Marys River. However, if colloquial usage does differ, we should prefer actual American to the official name. Similarly, its GEOnet server normally presents local official usage in the country concerned (for example, Frankfurt am Main); in a handful of cases, like Florence, it has a conventional name field. Its BGN Standard is a systematic transliteration, as Moskva — Wikipedia prefers Moscow. Where it acknowledges a conventional name, it is evidence of widespread English usage; where it does not, it is not addressing our primary question."

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyiv&oldid=323374264"