This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Why is Wikipedia here sporting a map of Ukraine minus Crimea?? Is Wiki run or owned by the Kremlin now? One should not reward international criminal acts, such as the violent seizure of other countries territories, by validating the theft with an altered "faite accompli" map. I would have removed it and post an official and internationally-recognized map of Ukraine, but I am sure those responsible for this sneaky act would repost this travesty once again... What is next? A map of Ukraine missing Donetsk and Luhansk??
Crimea is shown in light grey as a disputed territory.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2015
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the Wikipedia guidlines for article naming (see WP:COMMONNAME),
Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.
In this sense, Kyiv should be the title of this article. Although Kiev is used more frequently, this is because it is an incorrect transliteration (from Russian instead of Ukrainian). 'Kiev' can therefore be consideed an inaccurate name, and as per Wikipedia policy, should be avoided as an article title. Kyiv is the correct English spelling of the capital of Ukraine, and is frequently used in Ukraine, as well as in noteworthy English-speaking organizations like the U.S. Embassy Kyiv and the British Embassy Kyiv. The only reason media sources and others use the name 'Kiev' is because it is a common misconception, and media outlets worry that people will not recognize the correct name of 'Kyiv'. Therefore, there really is no argument that 'Kiev' is the correct name, merely that it is widely-used. In the past on the talk page, people have said that 'Kiev' is commonly-used so therefore should be the article title. However, the Wikipedia policy clearly states that it is perfectly fine to avoid incorrect but more frequently used words or spellings for article titles. Additionally, one cannot say that 'Kiev' is THE correct English usage. English doesn't have a separate word for the capital of Ukraine, although it does for Moscow, Warsaw, and Prague. Thus, the real issue is the spelling, and it seems obvious that the spelling should be obtained through transliteration from Ukrainian.
I therefore request that the article title be changed to Kyiv, and that the name be stated as "Kyiv, also known as Kiev...".
You do have to realize that although more and more people are using the Kyiv spelling of Kiev, it would cause problems since this is an English-language dictionary. Kyiv would leave English speakers scratching their heads on how to appropriately pronounce it. They would likely start by pronouncing it would a long i vowel as in "my" and then try to couple it with a shortened short i vowel, making the city name sound like "Chives." While right now the city name is pronounced more appropriately with the "ie" as in "believe". In this case, Kiev is a transcription, not a transliteration. Most city names are transcripted into English, not transliterated. So the question is not transliteration from Russian vs. Ukrainian. But rather transliteration vs. transcription from Ukrainian. You need to be able to argue this point as well.
Add to this, that Ukraine is more Bilingual than any other country I know, the close similarities between Russian and Ukrainian and the fact that a larger portion of the population doesn't understand Ukrainian than the population that doesn't understand Russian. (If you still want to include Crimea and Donetsk). Embassies will change their names for political reasons, but I wouldn't really want this to expand into an encyclopedia. Politics is not a good basis for an encyclopedia, I believe reason is. Unfortunately, on some parts of this encyclopedia, like Jenner, politics seems to have overridden reason and has actually gone out it its way to prevent reason from even speaking.220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
May be you have to realize that the name of the city IN ENGLISH is Kiev. It is different in Ukrainian, but we are not the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Same way as Moscow is not Moskva and Rome is not Roma.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
In English Kyiv is used more and more often. Google trends show that Kyiv os more common so support renaming. And you are a Russian troll form Olgino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
"Additionally, one cannot say that 'Kiev' is THE correct English usage. English doesn't have a separate word for the capital of Ukraine, although it does for Moscow, Warsaw, and Prague." How is "Kiev" different from "Moscow"? Both are the English words for those cities. The English name "Kiev" is no more Russian than the English word "microscope" is Latin.--Khajidha (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
'English doesn't have a separate word for the capital of Ukraine, although it does for Moscow, Warsaw' LOL English is a strange language LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)