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 SWC (talk | contribs) at 18:08, 2 May 2010 (→‎The capital of Ukraine is the City of Kyiv - Article 20 of Ukrainian Constitution). 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.

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

Summary of older discussions over naming the article

Partial list of previous move requests:

Strong arguments

It is spelled as Kyiv in English language because:

1) Ukrainian government insists on Kyiv spelling

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

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

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

5) Major English speaking governments worldwide switched to Kyiv spelling

6) CIA refers to the city as Kyiv

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia - look in the mirror ...

Dear Wikipedia!

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

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

... you very properly state, that:

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

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

“Ukrainian government, [...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, Mumbai & Beijing

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

lost cause :( --Andriy155 (talk) 08:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps lobby the BGN folk. WP follows convention, not creates convention. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:11, 15 October 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): [1]. 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]

Requested move October 2009

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

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

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]
  • Support Kiev seems outdated and conservative spelling of the city name. Please see reason provided by Christian Science Monitor for abolishing using Kiev and switching to Kyiv earlier this year here --Andriy155 (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Andriy155 means "Kiev seems outdated and conservative..." rather than "Kyiv...". (Taivo (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks! Fixed.--Andriy155 (talk) 04:32, 13 November 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]

Data Demonstrating Common Usage

English-language newspapers and news websites

United States
Newspapers
However, as of May 2009 Christian Science Monitor switched to the spelling of Kyiv Kyiv or Kiev --Andriy155 (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
News Magazines
Television News
Canada
United Kingdom
Australia
Ireland
South Africa

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

Data Demonstrating Official Governmental Policies

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

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

Discussion

At this point, the evidence shows:

1) The news sources surveyed strongly favor "Kiev", in some cases by an overwhelming majority of instances. "Kyiv" is not always the most recent usage. One Canadian newspaper gives equal weight between "Kiev" and "Kyiv"
2) Encyclopedias have not been thoroughly surveyed. The four listed are split between "Kiev" and "Kyiv".
3) The academic sources surveyed generally favor "Kiev" with a few split between "Kiev" and "Kyiv". The academic sources tend to have a low number of hits to compare.
4) International organizations have not been widely surveyed. The one source favors "Kiev".
4.a) If you are talking about UN - officially they recognise it as Kyiv. Links were added.
4.b) Major English-speaking governments and their embassies were consulted - they all use Kyiv. --- Londain (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]

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

General Guidelines require only acceptance not the overwhelming usage.
A bit of history: I recall changes like Beijing did not happen overnight. It took Chinese some 10 years to convince the West about it. Mumbai went a bit faster as British did not want to bother with their colonial past.
We have already moved all post-Soviet names on Wikipedia: Kishenev is now Chişinău, Alma-Ata is now Almaty... Kiev just stands as an odd example giving some room to revert the above changes. Why give the others another case to revert the other changes? Using the same logic as we used in those geographical names it should be Kyiv instead of Kiev. Any other reasons not to?
As time will pass Kyiv will be catching up, now the real question comes as: do we at Wikipedia recognise it as the modern spelling, as accepted one, or as the one that it overwhelmingly used over the web (it is difficult to count elsewhere, who is counting? haven't seen anyone so far.) --- Londain (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning "acceptance" versus "usage", if the occurrence of "Kiev" and "Kyiv" were fairly evenly matched (or even close), then that would be a good argument that neither is common and that "Kyiv" was accepted. In other words, it would lean the argument in the direction of "Kyiv". However, we're not dealing with two spellings that are even close. In some of these sources (where "Kyiv" occurs at all), there is as much as a 150:1 ratio of "Kiev" to "Kyiv" (the Financial Times). There is not a single public source where "Kyiv" dominates over "Kiev". At most, the two spellings are equal in a small number of sources. (Taivo (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
There is an error in Londain's statement, however. Not "all post-Soviet names" have been moved on Wikipedia. Odessa is still Odessa, not Ukrainian "Odesa". One of the reasons for this is that the official Odessa city website [2] spells its name in English "Odessa", despite the official position of the government of Ukraine, but the other (stronger) reason is the same as that being used here--common English usage uses "Odessa" overwhelmingly. The majority of English speakers know only four cities in Ukraine (in descending order of knowledge): Kiev, Odessa, Yalta, and Sevastopol (the latter two are only familiar to those who read any history). Yalta and Sevastopol are spelled the same in Ukrainian and Russian. Only Kiev and Odessa are spelled differently. Until English speakers adapt to "Kyiv" (even Odessans don't want to change the spelling of their city), then we must use "Kiev" here. (Taivo (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

Relevant Notes

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

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

One more reason (rather political than linguistic).

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

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

Are you for Kyiv VS for Kiev?

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

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

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

The only relevant issue in Wikipedia is common English usage. It has nothing to do with our feelings about Ukraine. Only common English usage is relevant. (Taivo (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Wikipedia is not in the business of being correct. Common English usage is the policy, whether or not it is based upon correct data. It is not a political "diss" at Ukraine or Kyiv/Kiev.Srilm (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any arguments based on "common usage" in a situation where a name has been changed are ipso facto irrelevant. If the names of other cities are changed at the requests of those governments, this rule should apply across the board and across the world. Any other argument is pretty pointless. Consistency is what should matter, whether in Wikipedia or in other media. Is there some rational reason why Ukraine is an exception to the rule? Rascalndear2 (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name hasn't changed--only the language of transliteration has changed (from Russian to Ukrainian). But even in cases where the name has changed, common English usage still prevails, thus Burma instead of Myanmar. It's all about policy. Wikipedia's policy is to use common English usage. If that policy were different, then Wikipedia might use Kyiv instead of Kiev. But as long as Wikipedia's policy is to use common English usage, then the data presented above are conclusive--"Kiev" is still the most common spelling of Kyiv. Someday that might change, but for now that is the fact of the matter. Ukraine is no exception either (see Bangkok, Warsaw, Prague, Moscow, Copenhagen, etc. for plenty of other examples where common English usage does not match the local name). Government request doesn't change common English usage. Only the millions of English speakers can change that. And which government are we supposed to listen to? The Ukrainian Rada says that the English spelling of Odessa is "Odesa", but the city itself spells its name "Odessa" in English. Who's right? The people who live there or the distant government in Kyiv? The people of Dnipropetrovsk want to spell their city's name "Dnepropetrovsk" since nearly all of them speak Russian. But the Rada wants to spell it Dnipropetrovsk. Who's right? In the end, governmental decrees are meaningless since governments can change overnight. What if Yanukovych gets elected? He could change all the names of eastern Ukraine back to Russian spellings. No, we don't listen to governments here, they are all short-lived. We only respond to common English usage for names that are commonly used. (Taivo (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Kyiv vs Kiev and Dnipropetrovsk vs Dnepropetrovsk are just two nice examples of how Wikipedia is inconsistent in its policies. Most of the names are already in the modern spelling. The official and widely accepted, even if not 100% overwhelmingly used, Kyiv spelling should be used from now on. --- (Wikipidyst (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
If you are arguing for preferred local usage rather than common English usage (which is the Wikipedia standard), then it should be "Dnepropetrovsk" as that is the preferred usage (the "modern spelling") in Dnipropetrovsk itself--it's a Russian-speaking city. So if you want Wikipedia to be "consistent" and use the locally-preferred spelling, then both articles should have different titles. (Taivo (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Guys, I wouldn't bother convincing them to change the article to Kyiv. It's already a big step for them not to have a definite article before the name of the country. Given what I see it would not have surprised me to see 'the Ukraine' written all over. --Andriy155 (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The capital of Ukraine is the City of Kyiv - Article 20 of Ukrainian Constitution

Article 20 - The capital of Ukraine is the City of Kyiv - http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm#r1

Saying that google finds more for Kiev that Kyiv and it's the main reason to igore change to Wikipedia articles conserning Kyiv - makes no sense. In your logic we should next change ukrainian constitution due to google search result. Of course in USSR Kyiv in every foreign press was spelled as Kiev. As a result it caused a habit to spell name of the capital of Ukraine in wrong way even up to day, but we are not living in USSR anymore. We are living in independent Ukraine and the capital of this country is Kyiv.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SWC (talk • contribs) 15:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position, SWC. However, the names used in the articles of the English-language Wikipedia are not based on the text of any constitution, or on the decisions & desires of the government and/or people of any country. Instead, the names used in our articles are based on our policy on article titles and our naming conventions for geographic names. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I uderstand the policy of Wikipedia. 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 This makes sense , but stil I just can't acept it. Kiev (Russian: Киев) or official Kyiv (Ukrainian: About this sound Київ (help·info) IPA: [ˈkɪjiw] - non-sense. Why should russian way of pronunciation be the official name if the country is Ukraine and the only one officail language is ukrainian? I am not asking just to wipe out Kiev from the list, but Kyiv should be the main one and the Kiev - alternate.--SWC (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I not sure if I understand. Where does the article say that "Kiev" or the Russian pronunciation are the official name ? On the contrary, the article clearly states that for various institutions Kyiv is the official name of the city.
If by "official name" you mean "the name used as title of this article and then consistently in other articles of the English-language Wikipedia", then the answer is: because our policy on article titles and our naming conventions for geographic names ask us to reflect common English usage, not the official name in the country where a city is located, or the name in the official language of said country. — Of course, you can propose changes to these Wikipedia policies at Wikipedia talk:Article titles & Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). But, honestly, I don't think that a switch from "common English usage" to "official names" or "names in the official language of the country in question" will gain much support. - Best, Ev (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main idea of changing this article was to make Kyiv more common in use. Ok, a change will be proposed. --SWC (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyiv/naming&oldid=359678724"