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 Dotoner (talk | contribs) at 12:11, 6 September 2016 (→Kiev janai, Kyiv da!). 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)

I have a suggestion

If you want the article to be renamed, the only way to accomplish this is to start a WP:RM. Please note however that this has been done at least 8 times in the past 9 years, and the result is always the same. Softlavender (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Let's rename this article to Kyiv and see how much it will reduce the level of debates around it. 46.63.38.5 (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the suggestion, but that would be missing the point of this talk page. It's referenced on a number of other talk pages as the forum for any queries surrounding nomenclature, and the objective is to distinguish between WP:COMMONNAME and the use of the Ukrainian transliteration of the Ukrainian name in English. As the discussion surrounds the English nomenclature, the WP:TITLE of the talk page is appropriate. The purpose isn't to fly under the radar and make executive decisions without broader community input. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a better suggestion. Definitively prove that "Kyiv" is more common in actual English usage than "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Embassy of the United States (http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/contact-information.html) and British Embassy (https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-embassy-kyiv) officially uses Kyiv, so „Kiev” is just a common mistake and nothing else. Encyclopedia isn't a place for mistakes, even if they are common. 46.63.38.5 (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not proof that the common English usage is "Kyiv". That's just government policy. Unless you've lived in a cave all your life you would know that government policy means absolutely nothing when it comes to common English usage. --Taivo (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Official usage in many English-speaking countries from reliable sources is not a proof for ecyclopedia? Thank you, I lol'd. 46.63.38.5 (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Taivo said, that is not proof of COMMON USAGE. That is, usage by the ordinary person, in journalism, and in literature. The English language is not government regulated. --Khajidha (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then you can read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_University_of_Kyiv-Mohyla_Academy: „The university is bilingual in Ukrainian and English. It is one of Ukraine’s few universities with internationally recognized diplomas”. Do you think that university with education in English and internationally recognized diplomas calls itself wrong? 46.63.38.5 (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a Ukrainian university it's usage is dominated by Ukrainian language norms, whatever language instruction is offered in. Usage of English as a foreign language has no bearing on standard English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would just cause a lot of people to demand that it be moved back to Kiev. --Khajidha (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm still waiting on an explanation of how it is offensive in the first place. I can understand the offensiveness of using a Russian name in Ukrainian, but this is neither using the Russian name nor written in Ukrainian. It is using the English name in English. Yes, the English name is derived from the Russian name, but that doesn't make it a Russian word any more than microscope is a Latin word just because it is derived from Latin. --Khajidha (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For me it's not offensive, it's just wrong. Serious mass encyclopedia must not contain such mistakes. 46.63.38.5 (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing "wrong" about it. The English word for a place to sit at a desk is "chair". The English name of the sea south of Ukraine is "the Black Sea". The English name of the capital of Kansas is "Topeka". The English name of the capital of Ukraine is "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The English name of the capital of Ukraine is Kyiv. Please, stop propagate mistakes. 46.63.38.5 (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't. We are propagating the common and correct English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that the government of your country and governments of many other English-speaking countries propagating wrong English usage? I lol'd again. It's a conspiracy, not otherwise. Or maybe really it's just you? 46.63.38.5 (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge difference between the language of diplomats and the general language. Wikipedia is written in the latter, not the former. --Khajidha (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is tantamount to Germans demanding "Cologne" be dropped in favor of Koeln since the former is based on the French name of the city. It is the traditional English name. "Koeln" would be silly. The same is true of "Venice" (Venezia), "Florence" (Firenze), Munich (Muenchen), Warsaw (Warshawa) and many, many other examples. Beijing is still called "Peking" in Russian and Ukrainian....perhaps Ukrainians should be concerned with correcting their own language? I would also like to point out that the letter "y" in modern English cannot produce the sound which Ukraine's government ascribes to it in their official orthography. Sorry, but I deny the authority of the Ukrainian government to determine the rules of English orthography. The traditional spelling "Kiev" approximates the pronunciation of the name in Ukrainian and Russian. I would think that Ukrainians of all people (and these demands to change come almost exclusively from Ukrainians) would be sensitive to the the issue of having one's language controlled by someone else. The root of the matter is that in the Russophobic world view of Ukrainian extremists (who do not represent the whole country of Ukraine), Russia's tentacles extend everywhere. When in reality (from which they are sadly completely detached), the English usage has nothing at all to do with Russia or "Russian spelling" (which uses a different alphabet from English) but is the correct spelling of an *English* word which has been attested for centuries. Giordano Bruno (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If those arguing for the use of 'Kyiv' actually bothered to read this talk page, including the archives, they'd find exactly the same arguments surrounding the 'native' use as opposed to the English language use being presented time and time again, GiordanoBruno683. The same can be said of the use of Greece, Turkey, Hungary, etc. as regards the names of countries alone. So why isn't 'Moscow' 'Muskva'/'Moskva' (dependent on whether we're basing this on transliteration or pronunciation)?
This talk page has become a sinkhole for editor time and energy, particularly in light of the fact that events over the last year and a half have unquestionably established that 'Kiev' is the accepted convention in the Anglophone world. I'm sorely tempted to move that it be turned into a FAQ with questions being raised again and again and the responses. The premise behind it should be that those who wish to argue for 'Kyiv' must have some new, well supported arguments for 'Kyiv'. I think we've all had enough of both the good faith arguments from those who haven't read the archives (and these are few and far between). This talk page has established itself as being an outlet for WP:GRIEFING by WP:SPAs. How much more in the way of personal attacks, incivility and energy should regulars be obliged to endure when there are no arguments outside of emotional ones? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In nowadays the capital of Ukraine is more and more known among public in the world commonly as "Kyiv". For example in source like "Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape" by D. Gorter,H. F. Marten,L. Van Mensel,G. Hogan-Brun,Luk Van Mensel; page 33 on topic Russian in the centre of Kyiv. More: "Creating diversity capital: transnational migrants in Montreal, Washington, and Kyiv." A. Ruble, Woodrow Wilson Center Press. End even in "Encyclopedia of Linguistics" Philipp Strazny - page 916.

In nowadays the capital of Ukraine is more and more known among public in the world as "Kyiv". For example in source like "Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape" by D. Gorter,H. F. Marten,L. Van Mensel,G. Hogan-Brun,Luk Van Mensel; page 33 on topic Russian in the centre of Kyiv. More: "Creating diversity capital: transnational migrants in Montreal, Washington, and Kyiv." A. Ruble, Woodrow Wilson Center Press. End even in "Encyclopedia of Linguistics" Philipp Strazny - page 916.

So a couple of books use "Kyiv". So what? The vast majority of uses in English are still "Kiev" because that's the English name for the city. --Taivo (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your thesis statement "nowadays the capital of Ukraine is more and more known among public in the world as 'Kyiv'" is not only unsourced (a handful of books do not prove the thesis), it is irrelevant, as we are only concerned with its WP:COMMONNAME in English, which, as TaivoLingust said above, continues to be "Kiev". The "Kyiv" proponents need to WP:DROPTHESTICK in the face of what is obviously a widely accepted consensus. BMK (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2016 (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.

Rename page to Kyiv

If you want the article to be renamed, the only way to accomplish this is to start a WP:RM. Please note however that this has been done at least 8 times in the past 9 years, and the result is always the same. Softlavender (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

In Wikipedia we should use official names of regions and cities therefore consider it appropriate to rename a page on the official name specified in the official translation of the Constitution of Ukraine, which is used in all documents and the names of institutions (Kyiv).

Official translation the Constitution of Ukraine: www.kmu.gov.ua/document/110977042/Constitution_eng.doc

Use header Kiev is not approved in the official documents of the country, and was used in the Soviet Union. I believe that the use of the name Kiev possible only as an additional and historic, but not official. Tunyk (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tunyk: If you had bothered to read this page and archived previous discussions you would have found that it has been discussed multiple times, and that A) it doesn't matter what "official Ukrainian documents" say, we go by what the common name in the English language is, and B) there's a clear consensus among editors here not to move the page to Kyiv. Thomas.W talk 10:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas.W:In my opinion this issue is advisable to decide Ukrainian people, not foreigners with subjective opinion. Your opinion isn't correct, as if guided by it instead of Finland we can call it Suomi. This too is that instead of the official name of the country Netherlands page title is Dutch.Tunyk (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tunyk: It's not up to the Ukrainian people to decide what words/names/terms speakers of a totally different language use. And everything else in your post is wrong too: Finland is one of the two official names of that country (the native name of that country is Finland in Swedish and Suomi in Finnish, the two official languages there), Netherlands is the English language name for that country (the official name in their own language is Nederland), and Dutch, as in Dutch people and Dutch language, refers to the people and the language of the Netherlands, not the country. A large number of countries, regions, cities etc have a name in English that differs from the name used in the language that is native in that area (such as Sweden instead of Sverige, Germany instead of Deutschland, Spain instead of España, Brittany instead of Bretagne, Vienna instead of Wien, Copenhagen instead of København, Munich instead of München, Venice instead of Venezia, and so on...), names that in most cases have been used for several hundred years, and are so solidly established that neither an "offical translation" nor the opinion of the local residents is going to change it overnight. And per WP:COMMONNAME Wikipedia goes by what form of a name is most commonly used in English language media, and among native English speakers, so Kiev isn't going to be changed to Kyiv until the latter is more common than the traditional name in the English language, i.e. Kiev, is. Thomas.W talk 11:22, 26 June 2016 (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.

Rename page to Kyiv

If you want the article to be renamed, the only way to accomplish this is to start a WP:RM. Please note however that this has been done at least 8 times in the past 9 years, and the result is always the same. Softlavender (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

In Wikipedia we should use official names of regions and cities therefore consider it appropriate to rename a page on the official name specified in the official translation of the Constitution of Ukraine, which is used in all documents and the names of institutions (Kyiv).

Official translation the Constitution of Ukraine: www.kmu.gov.ua/document/110977042/Constitution_eng.doc

Use header Kiev is not approved in the official documents of the country, and was used in the Soviet Union. I believe that the use of the name Kiev possible only as an additional and historic, but not official. Tunyk (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have a policy of using an official name.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uber uses Kyiv - 'Uber Has Arrived to Another European Capital – Kyiv!':https://newsroom.uber.com/ukraine/kyivuberx/ Tudy sudy (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Tudy sudy[reply]
What Uber uses has absolutely no relevance to existing Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia uses the variant most commonly used and recognized in the English language. If you have questions about what that means, I strongly urge you to read through the archives.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 1, 2016; 14:59 (UTC)
What I have pointed out that more and more companies are using KyivTudy sudy (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One company using "Kyiv" is still not common English usage. The majority of English-language media sources still use "Kiev". The shift may be happening, but it's much slower than you think it is. It's still not unusual to see "the Ukraine". --Taivo (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then we need to keep track on it, and this talk section could be the best place for it.--Tudy sudy (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, please feel free to keep track of it. You could do this using your own sandbox. There is, however, no point in bringing it to this talk page again until you have accumulated a lot of compelling evidence for a change in common usage across a broad variety of areas such as the Anglophone media, etc. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2016 (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.

Kiev janai, Kyiv da!

Yes. Again. I propose to rename the article to the proper transcription of "Київ", which is "Kyiv".

Rest assured, I have read all the arguments of both sides. The main argument of Russian transcription proponents is that Wikipedia stores the commonly used variant. Yes, this makes sense. Even if we just type both variants in Google, we will get much more results for "Kiev".

However, here I would like to express my point. How do you think: where does an average "common user" look for information? The answer is: Wikipedia. So it's just natural that if he or she visits the English page of "Київ" and sees "Kiev" as the name of the article, he or she starts using it and doesn't bother whether it's a proper name or not. What we get here is the endless circle: common users use Wikipedia to get information => information from Wikipedia becomes "commonly used" -> mighty Wikipedia's moderators say they just stick to the Wikipedia's policies of "common, not official usage". All in all, "Kiev" becomes kinda self-fulfilling prophecy. But the truth is: "Kiev" variant is "common" as long as it can be found on Wikipedia, which itself constructs the common usage. This phenomenon is very nicely described by Derrida and his concept of deconstruction. In short: those in power (moderators in this case) impose their own "truth" through the texts. So I wonder why should Russian moderators (I mean Ymblanter) decide how the world will call the capital of my country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotoner (talk • contribs) 09:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev is common as long as English-language reliable sources commonly use it. I doubt the NY Times takes its naming standards from Wikipedia. [1] [2] Britannica sure as heck doesn't. [3] --NeilN talk to me 10:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1) I doubt they don't. =) Anyway, Wikipedia has never given "Kyiv" a try. 2) Just another example of the logic described in my initial post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotoner (talk • contribs) 11:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My question is: Why do the Ukrainians care what another language does? I neither know nor care what the Ukrainian language calls cities in my country. It is none of my concern, barring only the hypothetical case where the Ukrainian name for a city is insulting in Ukrainian. So, if the English word for the capital of Ukraine were something like "Assburg" or "Moronville", I could see and agree with their position. Otherwise, no. I also find it ironic that the Ukrainian populace resents the imposition of Russian language norms within their country for decades, but has no qualms about trying to impose Ukrainian language norms on others.--Khajidha (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"My question is: Why do the Ukrainians care what another language does? I neither know nor care what the Ukrainian language calls cities in my country."
Because English is the third most spoken language in the world. And because what English Wikipedia uses as name for Ukrainian capital is the transcription of it's naming in Russian.
"I also find it ironic that the Ukrainian populace resents the imposition of Russian language norms within their country for decades, but has no qualms about trying to impose Ukrainian language norms on others."
Did I suggest to write it with cyrillic letters in English? Please read my first post carefully again. Conversely, I call to transcript the name of Ukraine's capital properly using the very norms of English transcription. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotoner (talk • contribs) 12:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read all the past discussions you would have realized your "call" is a waste of time. --NeilN talk to me 15:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant argument, bravo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotoner (talk • contribs) 15:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't actually answer my questions. What does the number of speakers of a language have to do with anything I mentioned? Let me rephrase my point, "why is the English name of the Ukrainian capital of any more interest to Ukrainians than the English word for anything else?" It's a different language, the words are going to be different. And the source of the English word is also irrelevant, Kiev being derived from Russian means no more than "telescope" being derived from Greek. Both are entirely English words at this point. I didn't say you were asking us to utilize the Cyrillic alphabet, but your insistence that we transliterate the Ukrainian term instead of using the English term is STILL an insistence on Ukraininan norms to the exclusion of English norms.--Khajidha (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"your insistence that we transliterate the Ukrainian term instead of using the English term is STILL an insistence on Ukraininan norms to the exclusion of English norms."
The main claim of my initial argument is that what you call English norm (or commonly used variant) is in fact neither norm, nor it is English. It is a mere construction imposed by such sources of information as Wikipedia. If it was really a norm, all English versions of Ukrainian namings should have been created through transcriptioning of their Russian variants.
And please stop asking these "why-do-you-care" questions. Everyone in this thread including you can be asked the same. Discussion is arguments, not rhetorical questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotoner (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not English? It's been used in English for CENTURIES. English forms words (including place names) in many different ways, just because other Ukrainian places names are handled differently doesn't mean that Kiev is not the normal English form. I ask "why do you care?" because I find the insistence that English change the way it does things based on the opinions of outsiders to be massively rude. --Khajidha (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"How is it not English? It's been used in English for CENTURIES."
Thanks God not for MILLENIA. Sorry, but I hope you understand Caps Lock is not the type of argument we should practice here.
"I find the insistence that English change the way it does things based on the opinions of outsiders to be massively rude"
To be honest, I find the efforts to present the distorted versions of namings as norms not only massively rude, but also extremely ignorant. That's why I care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotoner (talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't answered the question. How is a word that has been used in English for centuries not English? If this were some Cold War Era formulation I could see your point, but Kiev has been the usual term in English for centuries. How is it distorted? Anymore than any other English form is distorted. It is an English word, it doesn't have to match the Ukrainian word any more than "smile", "happy", "mountain", "green", etc match the Ukrainian terms for those things. --Khajidha (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"You still haven't answered the question."
Because you still haven't provided any proofs to support your claim of "used for centuries". That's what I meant by arguments in my previous message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotoner (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the Kiev article: "In English, Kiev was used in print as early as in 1804 in the John Cary's "New map of Europe, from the latest authorities" in "Cary's new universal atlas" published in London." --Khajidha (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right when the most of Ukraine's territory including Kyiv was under Russian empire's occupation. That's the very point I have expressed earlier: those in power impose their own "truth" through the texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotoner (talk • contribs) 21:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Russians didn't force the English speaking population to use that form though. Their power is irrelevant. And the fact that it has continued to be used makes it the normal English form. Whatever its origin, Kiev is now the standard English name. It is no more Russian than microscope is Greek. --Khajidha (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Faraway countries and cities like Kyiv were of no concern to English speaking population (I'm talking about common population, not governmental officials) at that time. The namings were used primarily by politicians and scientists. And I'm pretty sure the translators who worked for English government translated the official namings of Russian empire. So power is of quite a relevance here. --Dotoner
"So power is of quite a relevance here." Not really. Whatever the source, the 200+ years of usage has made "Kiev" the English form. As I've said before "microscope" isn't Greek despite being derived from Greek and "Kiev" isn't Russian despite being derived from Russian. You can't avoid the usage issue. If outside usage changes to favor "Kyiv", Wikipedia usage will change. --Khajidha (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Whatever the source, the 200+ years of usage has made "Kiev" the English form"
"Kiev" is not the English form, but a product of social construction existing in the past. Present reality is different. The principal difference between the genuine form (or essence of something) and construction is the possibility of change of the last one. What was constructed can be deconstructed and reconstructed.
"If outside usage changes to favor "Kyiv", Wikipedia usage will change."
Wikipedia is not something external to the reality. To make it more clear: Wikipedia is not a database about human world for some aliens who just observe us and don't interfere. In that case your argument would be relevant. However, Wikipedia not just stores the information about the present world, but also exists within it. That's why it inevitably influences it. The scheme is described above. --Dotoner
How is it not the English form? If English uses a word for 200 years, then that makes it the English word. I don't see how there can be any other way to decide what the English form is. English words are what are used when speaking/writing English. "Wikipedia is not something external to the reality." Seems like you have a problem with the fundamental nature of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia policy is based on the idea that Wikipedia reflects reality, but does not set it. If you cannot accept this, then you may wish to try to change the overall policy. However, this page is not the place to do that. By current practices, this page is named correctly. But, I suspect that you don't really care about the general naming guidelines, but only that this one page be changed.--Khajidha (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Languages do change according to the present social circumstances. You can take the texts from 1800 and 2016 and compare them.
"All Wikipedia policy is based on the idea that Wikipedia reflects reality, but does not set it."
Proofs please. But even if this is true that doesn't change anything because even if Wikipedia doesn't consider itself as setting the reality, the reality is: it does set it. So if Wikipedia reflects the reality, it should reflect the reality in which it sets it. Otherwise it reflects not the reality, but some vacuum world constructed in accordance with it's own guidelines. --Dotoner

Until someone can provide hard evidence that English speakers have generally switched from "Kiev" to "Kyiv", then it doesn't matter what the Rada says or what the UN says. Wikipedia runs by common English usage. We've had this discussion a hundred times at least and no one has provided any evidence that "Kiev" is not overwhelmingly the name in English for Ukraine's capital. --Taivo (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to read my first post? Did I say a word about the Rada or the UN? General shift from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" is impossible while such general sources of information like Wikipedia keep imposing the former variant. --Dotoner
You have yet to demonstrate that such a shift should be made. What rationale is there for one language to give up its own formulations in favor of others?--Khajidha (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For "formulations" please see our discussion above. --Dotoner

UNCSGN (United Nations Conferences on the Standardization of Geographical Names) and UNGEGN (United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names) version

Kyiv is the correct name according to UNCSGN (United Nations Conferences on the Standardization of Geographical Names) and UNGEGN (United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names).173.38.209.10 (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And? Since when are they authorities on general English usage? --Khajidha (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We've been through this argument before: I just couldn't be bothered dredging through the archives to find it. UNGEGN is not an authority on English language use. In fact, UNGEGN isn't even used as an authority on how we transliterate geographical names per country and language where there is no prominent English WP:COMMONNAME for the purposes of Wikipedia (or any other encyclopaedic resource). The only thing UNGEGN is an authority on is their own Romanisation system. Also, please don't present them as if they were two separate and independent bodies: UNCSGN and UNGEGN are essentially the same subsidiary statistical working group within the UN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyiv/naming&oldid=738015975"