Talk:Kiev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeKiev was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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

Requested move 26 October 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - There's strong consensus against moving the article at this time. Because the discussion about whether or not there should be a moratorium on move requests is still ongoing, it would be inappropriate for me to determine the consensus on that right now, so I won't, for the purposes of this move closure.(non-admin closure) OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)



KievKyiv – Per WP:COMMONNAME. I realize that this may be a very controversial move request, but please hear me out before you make up your mind. There have certainly been MANY requested moves in the past, but I ask you to consider this request on its own merits and the weight of the evidence. Consensus (and common name) can change, and I believe we have now reached that inflection point in usage. Since 2015, there has been ~24,500 Google Scholar hits for "Kyiv" Ukraine whereas there has been only ~20,500 hits for "Kiev" Ukraine. In 2019 thus far, it has been a two to one ratio in favor of "Kyiv". I think Google Scholar results are particularly important because WP:COMMONNAME rests on the notion that we use reliable, independent sources. WP:SOURCETYPES reminds us that "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources". For those who prefer Google News, however, "Kyiv" Ukraine has surpassed "Kiev" Ukraine there as well. I really doubt that this is a temporary change. In reviewing past requested moves, I have seen examples presented of style guides changing from Kiev to Kyiv. I have seen no examples of style guides changing in the reverse direction. This is not random variation in usage. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this change in usage correlates with major journalistic and scholarly attention on Ukraine and Ukraine-related events over the last several years. Given this recent attention in English language media, I am certain the common name of Kyiv in English isn't changing back. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Beyond this having been soundly rejected again a few months ago, I think I would point out that Google Books is more appropriate to use than Google Scholar in this case. The results are much less clear when "Ukraine" is excluded anyway, but what you are picking up on is use of a city name (a social/political topic) in scientific papers (where it is usually referring to the official names of affiliations the scientists are working for). Use of "Kyiv" in reference to Ukraine's National Academy of Sciences in an article called "Tubulin acetylation accompanies autophagy development induced by different abiotic stimuli in Arabidopsis thaliana" is not a great indicator of common usage in reliable sources. However, I would be remiss not to state that, per Atlantic Council, "A number of global heavyweights have recently adopted the Ukrainian-language derived 'Kyiv' as their official spelling for the country’s capital city, replacing the Russian-rooted 'Kiev.' This trend began with the Associated Press in late August. Since then, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Telegraph, and the BBC have followed suit." Dekimasuよ! 05:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Talk about specific cherry-picking. User:IronGargoyle has searched the web to find and focus on the only place where a web search favors "Kyiv" over "Kiev" without considering how it is, by its very nature, a rejection of Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME policy for article names. There is nothing whatsoever "common" about using only Google Scholar as a data source as pointed out by User:Dekimasu. The move requests are now coming at a weekly pace and being rejected at the same rate as before. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Google search "Kiev -Kyiv -chicken" last 7 days: 9.23 M
  • Google search "-Kiev Kyiv -dynamo" last 7 days: 5.08 M
In other words, in common usage (not just among scholars, who also try to not split infinitives) there is nearly a 2 to 1 preference for "Kiev" over "Kyiv". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support moratoriam proposal for six months, to be enforced by admin action if voluntary compliance doesn't work. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Technical point: those are not the actual number of search results, only Google's completely inaccurate estimate. To get the right number, you have to click through to the last page of search results. At this moment, I am seeing 186 to 118.
Usage point: why are you omitting “dynamo” from the search results? The soccer-team name Kyiv Dynamo is an instance of the usage of the city’s name, a direct reference to the city. Chicken Kiev is different: up-to-date style guides that recommend the Kyiv spelling also call out chicken Kiev as independent and to be spelled differently. Michael Z. 2019-10-30 21:36 z
The soccer team has never been called "Kiev Dynamo" and, like "Chicken Kiev", it is a static proper name. Including the proper name of a sports team, like including the proper name of a chicken dish, skews the results since English speakers don't get to choose one option over the other. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Usage of Kyiv Dynamo is no more relevant to the English name of the city than usage of Bayern Munich is relevant to the name of the German region. --Khajidha (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I'll see if some other editors change my mind with some posts. Per common name/usage I don't think it's any contest that Kiev is used more in English. The gap keeps closing, and with major publishers switching to Kyiv it is inevitable, but Wikipedia isn't in the "inevitable" forecasting business where it becomes part of a self-fulfilling prophesy. Another item... if it ever changes it should also be worded as we do today, just flipped around. "Kyiv or Kiev is the capital of Ukraine", because Kiev would still be seen as proper but less used. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Scholars alone don't decide what "common use" is, searches that include media show that "Kiev" is still by far more used than "Kyiv" in English, also support a moratorium on new RMs for moving Kiev to Kyiv, for six months to a year, to be enforced by admin action if voluntary compliance doesn't work.. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 07:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
What searches? My "news" searches in English on Google from last month show something else. Sure, there are a lot of Ukrainian news written in English but I am curious how you can eliminate unwanted results and if it is even acceptable. Chrzwzcz (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Because Ukrainians don't set English language standards anymore than Brits and Americans set Ukrainian language standards. This isn't difficult to understand. --Khajidha (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
In these few months things started to move really quickly, you can panic, you can propose 6 months moratorium, 1 year moratorium, make up various excuses, you can insult Ukrainians as you like, but your newspaper already switched (or are switching) and all of this is just wikiboureaucratic stalling - move requests with less promising ratio (way beyond "common common threshold") were successful in the past... Moratorium because "these frequent RMs are getting ridiculous"? Now RM has finally got a very solid ground with more and more prominent sources on board, but sure, panic, stall it, make new rules, try to fight it... Chrzwzcz (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Panic? Sheesh. And the only ones who are dreaming are you and others who believe a change is close, because all evidence clearly shows that Kyiv still isn't even close to Kiev. Not even in Ukraine (see my comment about Google Trend-searches below...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Google searches? More important are google results. Sheeesh yourself, it only shows demeaning position of opposers. I clearly stated that ratio is not in favour yet. And also I evaluate it as getting better every day. I also said that move requests with worse ratio were successful, god knows because of what pretense, maybe insensitiveness of the "old" name, or what. And shaming of the ones who still uses the old name. Is it insensitive? We have a sources that basically says so. It could be a win stategy here too. Is it a good one? Not really, it would really be better to beat it just in sources count (and importance of those too). But who wants to succeed now no matter how, we do have examples from the past it is winable at this state of things. It is. Previous examples also sets the procedures, not only citing exact rules to the letter. I think this move request should have been the first one ever, only now it really does have some merit and it is in lowest possible state to be successful, those other were clearly doomed. And people now take previous move requests into account when deciding how to vote now (moratorium here, moratorium there, just being tired). Chrzwzcz (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC) In other words: Is Kyiv more common? No, no, really no, I can't stress enough that I do not deny it. Is it the definitive reason to refuse the request? Also no, an exception could be made as it was in the past with other names. We can investigate why the exception was made in previous similar cases and if Kyiv is eligible. Chrzwzcz (talk)
One more statement like this, and I am going to block your account for disruption. Your predecessor was allowed to disrupt the project for way too long before we topic-banned them, I will not let your rants with personal attacks go long-term.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Where? "Rants", "attacks", "disruption", who attacks here? I asked the right questions here (past precedents where similarly uncommon name won its move request and why Kyiv gets different treatment than that) and instead of an answer - ban threat. If you want to play it and win it this way and enjoy such victory, I can't stop you. I am passing the torch back to Ukrainians (and others?) to make their cause, to collect evidence about very similar move request where it WAS successful, or just to wait until it is more likely to succeed. In the past there were promises "wait until BBC", now even BBC is not good enough... so one may wonder what gives, why such inconsistency in treatment and promises. So - bye! Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Now a new move request occurs when one more new source is in favour. Maybe wait a few months between move requests and then hit with more stength with more sources on board at once. You wear people down this way. Anyway I do think lowest threshold for acceptance was already crossed and it would not be totally unthinkable to move it already... but yes, we can also wait for more convincing state. Chrzwzcz (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose again wait for BBC to change. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
    BBC said they have changed though this is irrelevant.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose because searches indicate that "Kiev" is still the WP:COMMONNAME in common usage (which is different from diplomatic or scholarly usage). Also, I propose a 6-month moratorium on renaming proposals (both through WP:RM and for general naming discussions) because this discussion is highly repetitious and achieves nothing of benefit to Wikipedia. Maybe in a few months' time, the balance will have changed - but at current rate, this will be raised from scratch again in a week or two's time, and we can be pretty confident that nothing will have changed in the meantime. Kahastok talk 08:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @IronGargoyle: This RM should be moved to Talk:Kiev/naming, since that's where such discussions take place (as stated near the top of this page: "A special subpage has been created for discussing the name of the article, Talk:Kiev/naming. Please take all naming discussion there!") - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Except move requests, those happen here. Chrzwzcz (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Previous move requests have been discussed at Talk:Kiev/naming (the page header on that page clearly states that "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 are listed on WP:RMC"). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose move (again) per above arguments. I also support the moratorium proposal. This is getting far too repetitive. O.N.R. (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just made a large number of searches on Google Trends (https://trends.google.com) on Kiev -chicken -dynamo vs Kyiv -chicken -dynamo to see how Kiev fared vs Kyiv in searches originating in a number of regions (entire world, United States, United Kingdom and Ukraine) and a number of categories (All categories, "Books and literature", "News" and "Reference material") during the past 30 days, and found that Kiev beat Kyiv by a clear margin in all categories and all regions (including searches originating in Ukraine!). Showing that Kiev is still used far more among English-speakers than Kyiv is. I'm not posting the links here, but the searches I made can be easily duplicated by anyone with access to the Internet and Google Trends. Note: I'm well aware of what the rules about "common use" here are, and that it isn't defined by searches, so there's no need for anyone to point that out to me, but it's still interesting, since it shows what real common use among common Internet-users is...Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support fully and completely per nomination. Not long ago those who advocated the adoption of "Kyiv" as the English exonym for the Ukrainian capital were marginalized as belonging to a Ukrainian nationalist fringe. However, as also pointed out by Dekimasu, it is no longer simply the nation of Ukraine that is putting forth "Kyiv" as the Ukrainian capital's English name, but the most WP:RELIABLE SOURCES in the English-speaking world and their number is growing by the day. The time has come. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 23:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose and embargo further move requests for a period of one year. The time has, in fact, not come. ——SerialNumber54129 23:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The time has not yet come for the majority of English language sources to stop referring to the city by its more familiar Russian-transliterated name. Embargo requests futher per above. Lazz_R 11:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nothing whatsoever has changed. The vast majority of English-language sources from English-speaking countries still use Kiev. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    • And support a moratorium of at least six months, of course. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The traditional name is "Kiev". Kyiv sounds as a neologism. Dimadick (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose and impose a moratorium on RMs. Srnec (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose page move and Support a moratorium of at least six months on these repetitive, disruptive RMs. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is so tiresome. I'd support a moratorium of three years. Ghirla-трёп- 10:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose but also oppose moratorium. It's true that reliable sources still appear to use "Kiev" over "Kyiv." It's a clear majority, but at the same time it's clear that "Kyiv" is also widely used and recognized as a name for this city. I found this discussion because, with recent heavy news coverage of Ukraine, I noticed onscreen news crawls and lower thirds using the "Kyiv" spelling and even commented aloud, "When did we change how 'Kiev' is spelled?" So I looked into it out of curiousity, and here I am. While a more holistic assessment of sources suggests that "Kyiv" has not supplanted "Kiev" as the common name in English, I believe a moratorium would be inappropriate. As I mentioned, Ukraine is front and center in American politics, so more English speakers are talking about Kiev. This could result in a situation where usage changes quickly. Rather than impose a moratorium, we have to assume good faith and believe that editors supporting this change will wait until they believe usage has changed or a new compelling argument has emerged; and if editors who oppose the change still oppose it at that point, they can reassert the arguments and say why the new proposed rationale is insufficient. Also, arguments that the Ukraine government does not set English usage are not compelling. Many locales set official names in languages other than the local official language(s), and there is a guideline for consideration of WP:OFFICIALNAMES. --DavidK93 (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    The problem is of course that most of the previous RM's (not this one though) were initiated by Ukrainian driveby editors who are not regular editors of the English Wikipedia. They are not interested in improving encyclopedia, they are only interested in pushing their views through. With the moratorium, we would be at least able to close such frivolous move requests. And hopefully after Trump gets impeached in January and the Senate votes against his removal from the office, the wave of Ukraine-trelated news in the US stops for the next fifty years, and in a while after that we will have more reliable stedy-state stattstics of English usage.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I support moratorium and I propose to start a development of criteria that would allow us to make a decision about renaming (which seems almost inevitable is future). All new proposals to rename the article should be redirected to the discussion of these criteria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose page move and Support a moratorium, I think a year i reasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - at first I was a Oppose, but some research made me change my mind. The Ukrainian government adopted Kyiv as its standard Latinisation in 1995, making Kyiv mandatory for use in legislative and official acts. The reason, I suppose, was that Kiev is a direct transliteration of the Russian spelling of the city’s name. I guess the only reasonable way to stop the above pestering (and the inevitable), is to cave in. After all the same was done for Bombay changed to Mumbai, for similar motives. English or international readers, thanks to the redirect, will always find the article, and exposing them to the new spelling won't hurt them. --Robertiki (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Because a foreign (non-English-speaking) government wants it" is, perhaps, the worst possible reason for the name of a Wikipedia article to change. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
So you are saying that if a foreign government renames its capital city name, or maybe, its country name, Wikipedia sul refuse to accept the change ? What's the difference with Bombay ? Or with Birmania ? Why Wikipedia is still not using the old english names ? --Robertiki (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't refuse, it just makes zero difference. This is an English encyclopedia so we look at what English sources and the English population uses... not what some other language uses. When enough of those change, Wikipedia changes. Burma took years and years to change to Myanmar. I don't know what Birmania is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Happy to be helpful: Birmania --Robertiki (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Are you trolling [1]?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Now I am puzzled. --Robertiki (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Each of these situations is different, and trying to map from one to another runs a risk of false equivalence. For example, India is an English-speaking country, so even if "Bombay" were significantly used outside India there would still be the question of WP:ENGVAR to consider.
The common thread though is WP:COMMONNAME. Sometimes usage adopts the change proposed by the government in question. Other times it doesn't. Sometimes it first doesn't adopt the change, and adopts it later. The government of Burma renamed the country officially in 1989. The article was at "Burma" until 2015 when there was a significant shift in Anglophone usage - largely brought about by political changes in Myanmar itself. There has not been an equivalent change in the case of Kiev. Kahastok talk 19:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
A moratorium on move discussions has been implemented until 01 July 2020. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
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.

Proposed moratorium on move requests[edit]

Of course there are more proposals for a move request than there used to be, because the English-language usage of the spelling Kyiv continues to increase, and that increase is accelerating. In October 2019 alone, the Wall Street Journal, the Globe and Mail, the BBC, and the Washington Post all updated their style guides to the modern spelling. And a couple of months ago the Associated Press, which works with 15,000 news outlets, updated its AP Stylebook, the most influential style guide in English-language journalism. So the move requests are going to keep coming faster too. Get used to it.

If you don’t like dealing with Wikipedia editors and you don’t want to patiently explain your valid arguments for voting against the move requests in this democratic forum, then please remove this article from your watchlist and stop participating in the discussion. If your reflex is to stifle the free discussion, then there are better websites for you to frequent than this repository of open knowledge. See ya. Michael Z. 2019-10-30 21:52 z

If Kyiv is becoming increasingly popular, and you say (interestingly, my spell checker still is not recognising "Kyiv"), I think it may be a good time to discuss which prospective events may serve as a indication of the need to rename the article. Instead of discussing renaming again and again, let's focus on possible criteria that will allow us to tell "Yes, now we can rename the article", and, accordingly, "No, it is premature". I propose to make a non-archivable section where all arguments will be collected together.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that is a really good idea. I am not a particularly prevalent editor of geography topics, nor am I any kind of authority on naming conventions or reliable sources, so I don't know how much I'd be able to contribute to that conversation, if anything. But based on the contentious nature of the above conversation, I think it could be a lot more productive to actively discuss the criteria, rather than the instantaneous question of the article's title. --DavidK93 (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course quick list of already mentioned arguments would be fine. Opposers rather explain the same thing over and over (if lucky) or direct you to previos RMs to read all the MBs of text (if not lucky) :) No criteria needed, sonner it was "after BBC starts", BBC has started and what - all forgotten. So why bother with criteria, only one is "We will know, it will simply be common". Every day new high profile source on board so I guess it will not take long anyway. Moratorium does not mean the issue can't be open. If really really important change/shift happens, moratoruium is lifted. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The list of evidence must contain evidence of usage. That's not "style manual quotes". User:Chrzwzcz tends to mischaracterize all opponents' positions just because someone said, at some time in the past, "when the BBC changes". I didn't and most opponents didn't either. A list of "evidence" isn't foolproof because one person's evidence is not necessarily that of another person. It is, in essence, impossible to draw a bright red line in this matter. A moratorium means that we can all back off and come back in six months to consider and discuss the evidence again at that time. But as it is, with the weekly fervor, supporters and opponents don't (and won't) change their positions just because of some micron of shift one way or the other. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
It sounds like the OP thinks it is legitimate to persistently raise the same discussion over and over and over and over and over in attempt to drive productive editors away from the article. Ultimately, there comes a point where it is not good for Wikipedia for editors' time to be diverted to continually rearguing the same point ad infinitum, and I think this page reached that point quite a long time ago.
The criteria we need are detailed at WP:AT, and, if we move this article, we should move because a consensus has decided that the conclusion implied by WP:AT has changed. If there is a problem determining if that has happened, it is not because we don't have a standard, it is because it is unreasonable to expect people to independently reassess that standard from scratch every two weeks. Kahastok talk 20:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
No, User:Kahastok, I am not trying “to drive productive editors away from the article.” That is not a fair or charitable characterization, it doesn’t seem to be based on anything in my contributions to the article, to these discussions, nor to my voting in them. And it’s far from giving me any benefit of the doubt. How do you think it would look if I interpreted your contributions here in the least charitable light? In the future please do me the courtesy of tagging me instead of burying accusations about “the original OP” in your responses. Michael Z. 2019-11-19 00:04 z
It is second move request this year, isn't it? Second. One, two - second. "Usage" is nice criteria. Opposers say "usage is not there yet", supporters say "usage is there already" and here we go again. I would say NYT is now one of nice indicators, NYT resists by choice not ready to switch yet. Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
By my reckoning, the above RM is the eleventh separate discussion raised on this precise point since the closure of the last RM in July. That is an average of one every nine days. And that isn't a signficant spike or sudden increase. And a fair few of those discussions have gone on for several days, as the same people raise the same arguments over and over again.
Of the rest, I would refer you to my previous comment. Kahastok talk 20:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I counted at least 14 move requests this year. It's why editors are sick of it and might vote no just because they are sick of it. If it was only done every October and every April, it would still be a lot but manageable. And pro-kyivers would potentially have clumps of new data instead of "look what happened today" data. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I can see only two from 2019 in that list above. But do the same people start the discussion? Same people joins discussion afterwards and repeat the same, but the initial editor may be confused by arrangement of this talk page. I am clearly not able to count RMs from this year and I am not here first time :) Of course this issue can be put on hold via moratorium, but it won't stop the people who don't understand this mess here to raise the question again. Or people who think they found definitive reason and evidence. With more and more sources on board every day, I can only predict you will see the name change suggestion here more often, with moratorium or without it. Unless you lock talk page completely or add huge red rectangle with warning on top and bottom of the page. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
A red warning is actually possible. And the remedy for the ignorant? Delete their post with a note to look at the red warning. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see why we would expect them to see, read, and abide by the warning box any more than they see, read, and abide by the existing notice "This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Before re-nominating, review the move discussions listed below."--Khajidha (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Now it is fine print, visible only for those who look for it and for superexperienced cocky wiki editors. You have to look at it as newcomer, help new people, not mock them that they do not notice something somewhere up on the page, moreover wrapped in technical bureaucratic mumbo jumbo, wikirules, wiki recommendations, moratoriums etc. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

There should be a clear understanding of what is being proposed and what is meant by the term "moratorium". At the top of this page, as can be seen by everyone, is a list of KievKyiv submissions to WP:Requested moves. There was one in November 2012, one in November 2013, none in 2014, 2015 and 2016, one in October 2017, one in October 2018 and two in 2019 — one in July and one in October.

These requests have been visible to anyone who frequents or occasionally visits WP:RM, thus allowing for a wide range of participation. However, such move nominations that are widely seen at WP:RM should not be conflated with the discussions at the separate Talk:Kiev/naming page. During discussions on that page, participants tend to emphasize their views by indicating "Oppose" or "Support" at the start of their paragraphs, but those are not votes, but expressions of opinion and those discussions are not listed at WP:RM and are only known to those Wikipedians who either keep that talk page on their watchlist or visit that talk page on a near-daily basis.

Thus, based on past history, there is no need for a moratorium. We can all agree that there should be no more WP:RMs in 2019 and only one in 2020, perhaps in 9 months' time. On the other hand, respectful WP:GOOD FAITH discussions at Talk:Kiev/naming, should not be blocked or subjected to "Delete their post with a note to look at the red warning", which would be tantamount to censorship.

If someone posts at Talk:Kiev/naming, "I think that Wikipedia should move "Kiev" to "Kyiv" because the Library of Congress and all manuals of style are using "Kyiv"", someone else can explain that all manuals of style have not yet accepted "Kyiv" as the official form and allow space for discussion as to which sources are considered reliable and which are not, rather than deleting such comments and shutting down all discussion. Such authoritarian oversight of that page would not be in the spirit of Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 07:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

A FAQ like at Talk:Czech Republic could make this a little easier ("see point 1 in the FAQ above" or similar). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps both here and at Talk:Kiev/naming (and perhaps also at Talk:Ukraine?) there can be a note that says something along the lines of "While discussions of moving Kiev to Kyiv will continue, the article will be renamed only after a successful formal Request for Move has demonstrated a consensus for that move. By prior agreement, the next formal Request for Move cannot be initiated before June 2020." With a clear timeline, perhaps I can stop engaging with every proponent who crops up once a week. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I see little value in excluding general naming discussions from the moratorium. If a general naming discussion cannot result in a change the article (because the necessary RM is barred by moratorium), then it becomes merely discussion for discussion's sake. And per WP:NOTFORUM, that sort of discussion should not be happening on talk pages.
And note that a moratorium does not require that the comments be deleted. It is perfectly possibly simply to close them with a polite pointer to the moratorium discussion. Kahastok talk 18:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Under that standard, "general naming discussion" would become the description given to any exchange of views that falls outside the once-a-year WP:RM discussion, thus effectively shutting down the Talk:Kiev/naming page which, by its very name, focuses on that topic.
Any posting at Talk:Kiev/naming could be therefore classified as a "forum comment" and deleted by a participant who does not wish that this matter be discussed. Since talk pages are intended for submission of information that would improve the article and, since the Kyiv / Kiev name controversy is now frequently in the news, it is natural that ongoing events in that regard should be brought to the Talk:Kiev/naming page and freely examined without being pigeonholed as a "forum" and shut down. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 20:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The danger of allowing unlimited "discussion" of course is that those who bring their "change" comments here might be falsely encouraged when there is no opposition to their positions. With a clear moratorium on RMs, I'm going to spend less time here. But there needs to be some clear way to indicate to new editors that there will be no moving without an RM and that isn't going to happen just because they just saw "Kyiv" somewhere--it will not happen for months. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, at least no one would need respond anymore except the weekly anon pro-Kyiv bunch to each other since it would not move anyway. Many times a suggestion with no counter would embolden someone to make changes. A posting at the top of Talk:Kiev/naming that no matter how much pro-Kyiv talk goes on, no change will occur might stop anyone from engaging the weekly anon Ukrainian poster. The conversations might die down quickly with no one to argue with. And of course if it spilled into simple forum conversation it could be closed in a flash by anyone. I think it does more harm to the pro-Kyiv side by constantly bringing it up. Could you imagine no posts for a year and then someone saying "let's look at the all the changes that have happened in the last year." Those who had been angered by the glut of weekly move requests might be more open to change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
It won't work. There will always be someone to bring the newest news about the progress. You just simply cannot issue moratorium and order complete silence about the changes in sources (ie plain discussion). There are 44 million Ukrainians, 2.8 M in Kiev... Even 1/10000th means a lot :) Those anons (how you call them "nicely") ruin the chances for the Kyiv-supporters, so... What can they do? Draw big visible sign "Hey, message from supporters of Kyiv to supporters of Kyiv: Just don't! Do not discuss it, don't bring any news, just be quiet for a while, don't ruin it for us all. Wait patiently, collect the evidence, it will be more effective all at once later. " Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Bringing to the attention of Wikipedians items appearing in reliable and respected sources, such as the one from Atlantic Council linked by Dekimasu above (05:23, 26 October 2019) should certainly be an appropriate non-forum use of the Talk:Kiev/naming page. Likewise, announcements that the form "Kyiv" has been adopted by a major institution, such as the Library of Congress or a major media outlet should also be appropriate topics for non-forum exchanges among participants.
I also agree that a boldface notice at Talk:Kiev/naming should state words to the effect that, "The most recent WP:RM on this topic was at Talk:Kiev#Requested move 26 October 2019 and the consensus is that another move request should not be submitted before July 1 / August 1/ September 1 , 2020". —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 21:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Chrzwzcz, no one is talking about prohibiting posts about "I saw 'Kyiv' again today" unless they become disruptive (which is a defined Wikipedia-level problem and subject to admin action). We are talking about ignoring such posts, perhaps even issuing a standard reminder for new editors to look at the top of the page and its RM moratorium notice. The moratorium will strictly prohibit RMs only until the agreed-upon stated date. I also agree with User:Fyunck(click) that, like children sitting in the back of a car asking "Are we there yet?" every five minutes on a long road trip, editors constantly posting "Can we move now?" grows tiresome quickly and yields levels of resistance to a move that might actually be unwarranted at some point in the future. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually I am proposing that.
A moratorium that covers RMs but does not cover this, for example is a waste of time IMO because it does not resolve the problem we have.
If someone starts a discussion on naming, even if it is just "I saw 'Kyiv' again today", then that should be covered by the moratorium and should be speedy-closed. Not deleted, just closed. You suggest that nothing should happen "unless they become disruptive", well I'm saying that - however inadvertantly on the part of those starting these discussions - they have already become disruptive and that we should deal with that disruption.
And no, admin-level action won't help because admin tools are too blunt - protecting the talk page or blocking anyone who brings it up would be OTT. Mostly it's drive-by editors, not the same people bringing up the discussions over and over. Simply closing the discussions when they arise is a proportionate response, but to do that we need some basis on which to do it. Hence a moratorium. Kahastok talk 14:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Mmmkey. Now it is more like "Are we there yet? I already saw the sign so we must be there or just closer." Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
No, that's just wishful thinking on your part ;) But in terms of establishing a moratorium and placing a notice of it here and at Talk:Kiev, it sounds like we're in general agreement. We should agree on the length. I think that the minimum length should be 6 months although I'd prefer 9-12 months. Perhaps we could symbolically make the next RM on 24 August 2020. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Last year it was OK to do 12 month moratorium, there was hardly any change. Nowadays, when each day new prominent source switches, it is a bit excessive. It looks like Kiev won't live through winter, so let's check March 21 2020. Chrzwzcz (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
"New prominent source" is only your personal vision. It's not usage, it's only recommendations that you're looking at. You're still looking at drops in the bucket while the rest of us are looking for the rain. But that's not the issue. The issue is that you're not even suggesting 6 months from now, which is the absolute minimum that everyone else has recommended. Most of the recommendations have been for 9 months or more. The world will not come to an end if Kiev isn't moved to Kyiv the very hour that English usage has one more Kyiv than Kiev. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
New sources promise to use it, I give them a fall and a winter to prove it and keep their promise which will ultimatelly mean more usage (or not, or not!). A winter was a poetic touch, if it MUST be 6 months minimum, then it MUST, world would collapse otherwise. Chrzwzcz (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

So it sounds like the moratorium shouldn't not prohibit comments from new editors about moving, nor should it delete them, but should simply close them with a comment about the moratorium. That way we don't silence them and any data which they might bring to the issue can be preserved. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds fine by me. Kahastok talk 15:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times changed its practice as of today, according to a tweet by Moscow correspondent Andrew E. Kramer: “The New York Times has switched to Kyiv, instead of Kiev, as the spelling for the Ukrainian capital. The change discontinues a Russian transliteration of the city's name, though one that had been in wide use in English for many decades.” Ping User:Chrzwzcz (who wrote “I would say NYT is now one of nice indicators” here) and User:Coffeeandcrumbs (“Fuck the New York Times”). I’ll agree to a moratorium on Wikipedians discussing this subject if you all agree to a moratorium on the English language continuing to adopt the modern spelling of this city. Davai! Michael Z. 2019-11-18 20:23 z

There you have it. [One of the most "stubborn" sources fell. I did not expect it will be THIS fast, I thought Wikipedia would be quicker than NYT. Will anyone be impressed? No, on the contrary, longer moratorium will be proposed, more banning threats for supporters. For me it changes a lot and I am against any moratorium longer than 4 months. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Poll on how long a moratorium on Requests for Move should be[edit]

POLL RESULTS (as of 9 Nov)

(I get the feeling that no one knows the significance of 24 August to Ukraine.) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Probably not. But I'd say that I've generally found that timing these discussions to coincide with significant days - even accidentally - is a poor idea. You get more attention, but not necessarily the attention you want (which is from disinterested editors experienced with - in this case - article naming issues on Wikipedia). Kahastok talk 20:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I had ... well ... some relation to the appearance of this date as significant--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC).
Yes, that was only a half-serious proposal. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Are we voting ? That's not the way Wikipedia is supposed to reach consensus. Would someone summarize the reasons not to accept a foreign nation ruling changing its capital name ? Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, i.e. should teach. Thanks to the redirects, English speaking user will always find the correct page, and opening it, they will learn that the world has changed. As happened to me, time ago, searching for Birmania. If the page hadn't titled Myanmar, perhaps I would not have fully understood the change. I hope the most agree that the requested change is inevitable, and will happen in the future, so why not stop all that tiresome debating, and make the change now ? It strikes me that both rulings, that of Kyiv and that of Mumbai, were made in 1995. But while Mumbai is already accepted since 2001, Kyiv not. Why ? --Robertiki (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Nothing you have said here is remotely new. We have fourteen pages of archives on the naming question, plus eleven previous failed RMs and a current RM in which most editors have opposed a move. All of these you can easily see from the links at the top of the page. If, after reading all of that, you're still not sure what the objections to renaming are, then our repeating them won't help. And avoiding being expected to repeat these points over and over is one of the reasons why the moratorium should not be limited to RMs in my view. Kahastok talk 20:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
To garner some insight on the issue, I perused what looks similar, the Myanmar discussion. And a doubt comes to me: is the Kyiv question of political nature ? --Robertiki (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
In other words, you refuse to garner any insight on this issue because you're not reading the archives here at Kiev, but the archives in a completely unrelated situation. Read WP:OTHERSTUFF, too, while you're busy ignoring the issues here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
It seems so, we are told that the government of Ukraine favor this spelling in English. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC
  • I said 6 months originally as a balance between allowing that things may change over the course of a few months and giving enough time so that editors reevaluate based on any new evidence in the meantime. I would not object to a longer moratorium. However, I maintain that it should apply to all naming discussions, not just RMs. Kahastok talk 20:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • July 1st, 2020 per Fyunck(click). The section header for this WP:RM is "Requested move 26 October 2019" and it will close in early November. If the sole RM on this subject scheduled for 2020 occurs on July 1, it would be eight months after this RM. Taivo's appropriately poetic suggestion of starting the next RM on the 29th Ukrainian Independence Day (August 24, 2020), ten months after this RM, might actually be my first choice, but ultimately, the earlier the better.
The proposed 12-month moratorium would extend the wait for the next RM to November 1, 2020, which feels somewhat too long. Hopefully the 2020 RM will be the final one, with the nomination passing but, realistically, we will likely need another one, some eight or nine months later, on March 1 or April 1, 2021. Again, the hope is that 2021 would settle the matter and there should be normally only one RM in a calendar year, but fast-breaking events will inform whether we may need two in 2022 — one in January and one in September. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 00:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I can certainly endorse 01 JUL 2020 as well as User:Roman Spinner's suggestion of one per year. I agree that 2021 might be the year. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Or it could be 2025. It'll happen when it happens at this encyclopedia. It won't change personal usage of anyone here... heck I agreed with a Wikipedia change to Myanmar even though I'll probably always use Burma myself. But when the majority is convinced of Kyiv over Kiev, it'll just suddenly happen here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Digressing, I opened Google Maps, selected as english speaking, and there they are: Austria capital is Vienna (Wien), Italy capital is Rome (Roma) and Ukraine capital is ... Kyiv. So, an english user finds Kyiv on the map and ... what city is it ? Only kidding ... I am happy with Rome and Vienna, but if so many feel that it should be Kyiv, why not ? Is that really so important for not Ukrainian (and not English ?) editors ? --Robertiki (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Stop arguing about moving the article now. That question was already decided in the failure of the RM just a bit higher on this page. If you continue to push a move now, some admin might decide that you need a block on your editing privileges to get the message. The majority of editors also agreed to a moratorium on Requests for Move and we are now discussing how long that moratorium should be. Either participate productively in the discussion at hand ("How long?") or move on and edit elsewhere until the moratorium is over and you can talk about your favorite topic again at that time. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I was not arguing a move, just asking a question. RM is closed. I'm curious (and somehow offended) why I am harassed for the second time. Be polite, please. No need to threaten. --Robertiki (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
You were not "just asking a question", at least not without pushing your agenda to derail the moratorium. The previous thread was about whether or not to implement a moratorium. This thread is about how long to make the moratorium that most editors in the previous thread (on both sides of the "Kiev/Kyiv" issue) agreed would be best. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I already explained that Wikipedia is about consensus and not voting. So you may have one hundred editor asking a moratorium, but no one arguing a different reason, without success. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The reason the move request has failed is not because "that most editors" did not like it, because the "most editors" have exposed a identical reasoning. But because after the elapsed days, no consensus has been reached. I suggest you read what consensus is. As you see, it is not about "voting". If you are interested on my suggested time for a moratorium, it is 3 months, as suggested in the rules we have agreed. This is not a special case as you state. --Robertiki (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
While I realise you're going to ignore everything I say (as you have with everyone in this discussion), I think it's worth reminding everyone else reading this that the closer did not find that "no consensus has been reached". The closer found that there is a "strong consensus" against moving.
There comes a point where Wikipedia is not well-served by repeating the same discussion over and over again for ever, and we reached that point a long time ago. If it will not stop on its own, it must be stopped. I think it is useful to solidify my position here and endorse one of the options that people have chosen, and my choice would be 1 July 2020. Kahastok talk 21:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • April 1st, 2020 (quick check) / July 1st, 2020 (if April 1st check brings nothing new): At current speed it looks like Kiev won't live through winter. Maybe it won't maybe it will... But let's check after winter. I find it strange to propose longer moratorium than before just now - Now when things really has started to accelerate. Chrzwzcz (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
    Note that the article will only be moved if/when it is shown that Kyiv is clearly the main usage in English, not when Kiev and Kyiv are used roughly equally.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
    "Main usage" is one angle, another is "newer is better, newer clearly showed its potential by equalling the old one, and all cool kids are using the newer one" :). Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
That might be another angle, but it isn't the standard required. Kahastok talk 15:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
"Main usage" is the standard, not "new and improved". Only when prevailing usage is "Kyiv" will the article be moved. Trajectory doesn't count. That's why 01 JUL 2020 or later is the date that most here are considering. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Kiev is declining, Kyiv is rising, when they intersect in usage... Tell me who is winning then. Anyway I proposed to do quick check on April 1, it does not dispute anything of this! Quick peek, quick reevaluation, predetermined possible exit point to make an appeal. Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Given the significance of April 1st, I would suggest avoiding that date. At least if you want people to take your request seriously.--Khajidha (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 12 months seems perfectly reasonable. Changing usage by some news agencies is not going to change common usage in the forseeable future. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • April 1st, 2020 or maybe March 31 to avoid shenanigans. It seems to me the usage is changing rapidly. I only learned about this issue very recently, when I noticed the change in spelling in the media and came to find this discussion in full swing. In particular, many of the changes in style guides and official naming bodies are quite recent, with a slew of them occurring around August. So, unless there is a concerted effort by authors of new sources to reject this building scholarly consensus, we should expect that we will soon see a significant preponderance of "Kyiv" usage in new sources--which, in the case of WP:NAMECHANGES, are to be considered with greater weight. And, due to the impeachment proceedings in America, we should also expect to see many and frequent reports about Ukraine, so the sources will be easy to find. I don't think it helps to improve Wikipedia if we demand that we not consider new evidence while it's, you know, evident. --DavidK93 (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 12 months. Ukraine is currently all over the Anglophone news and many organizations have announced changes to their style guides to endorse Kyiv, yet the actual results I find for new stories is STILL running 2:1 in favor of Kiev. If it ain't showing an actual increase in usage now, it probably won't anytime in the near future. --Khajidha (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • After a week it now looks like a clear consensus of editors has developed around 8 months or more for a moratorium on requests for move. The general consensus on the text of the moratorium was that it would state the date of the next allowable formal request for move (right now either 1 July 2020 or 1 November 2020) and that any informal requests for move would be quickly closed without discussion. There was a general consensus that any premature requests would be quickly closed without discussion with a note on the moratorium in the closing text, but would not be deleted in order to preserve any data within them. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The following is an alternative take, not part of my original comment and not related to it. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  • After a week it now looks like a clear vote of editors around 8 months or less for a moratorium on requests for move. The general vote on the text of the moratorium was that it would state the date of the next allowable formal request for move (right now either 1 July 2020 or earlier and that any informal requests for move would be quickly closed without discussion). There was a general consensus that any premature requests would be quickly closed without discussion with a note on the moratorium in the closing text, but would not be deleted in order to preserve any data within them. I don't agree in going over the general 3 months rules. You can count my vote for the lesser 8 months, but not for the 12 months moratorium. And I feel the same goes for the 5 month'ers. Is the overwhelming majority against going over 8 months ?
consensus = agreement of opinion, accordance in opinion
What we have is a clear vote, not a clear consensus. :--Robertiki (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The two editors who have worked the hardest over the months to sponsor the move, User:Chrzwzcz and User:Roman Spinner, have both moved to the center, seeing the wisdom of a break in the continuous disagreement. Therefore, a true consensus can still easily be had by ignoring any radical editor. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I would note for my part that I would not oppose a moratorium that is longer than eight months if that were where the consensus were headed. I would also note that I understand User:Chrzwzcz's position to be not five months, but eight months, subject to a "quick check" or "reevaluation" at five months.
I would suggest that at this stage the wisest course of action may be to choose the lower bound of the consensus (i.e. eight months), on the basis that we can then if necessary extend it by consensus. Kahastok talk 16:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
My position is 5 months, quick check, pre-approved 3-month extension if not there yet. On the other hand I am OK with: 8 months long moratorium, because moratorium is not unbreakable (very very strong evidence can break it). Also thoughts about banning the naming discussion were not supported, so new evidence can be stacked on the naming subpage without RMs and that's reasonable compromise. Chrzwzcz (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I think different people mean different things by "ban". IMO they should be banned, with the ban enforced by speedy closure of any discussion started. But the difference between that and saying that they are not "banned" but will be speedy closed is purely semantic.
It seems to me that either any new discussion raised on naming will be aimed at changing the name of the article (in which case it will be covered by the moratorium) or it will not be aimed at changing the name of the article (in which case it should be closed per WP:NOTFORUM). Either way, naming discussions should be being speedy closed.
It also seems to me that we should consider the objectives of the moratorium, which to my mind are twofold. First, to give some breathing room for other improvement to the article. Second, to reset the discussion so that editors are looking at it with fresh eyes the next time it comes up.
If we have regulars routinely starting discussions that then get closed (either bringing the same arguments up over and over, or because they are working on the basis that "new evidence can be stacked" here) then neither of those objectives will have been achieved. And since the editors likely to make such postings are likely to be the ones who want a change, this would IMO work against their position in the long term.
And if we somehow concocted from this discussion a moratorium that only covered RMs, and that allowed other naming discussions to continue as they do now, then I would view that as likely to be counterproductive and so I would oppose it outright. Kahastok talk 14:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
This discussion about moratorium talks only about RMs, apart from your interpretation I ca't find anywhere explicitly stated that something else is not allowed during moratorium period. Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
That may be true IF you mean only this discussion about how long it should be. The discussion that led to the proposal of a moratorium includes several people pointing out that allowing people to yammer on and on about the name as long as they don't make a formal proposal out of it is pointless. Besides, many of the people who make these posts about "this article should be moved to Kyiv" are "drive-by editors" who don't know (or don't care) about how to make a move proposal. For this moratorium to have any meaning it MUST include any discussion or comment about Kyiv vs Kiev. --Khajidha (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The versions of the moratorium have risen to the surface:
  • Close and delete all RMs and discussions right away.
  • Close and delete all RMs, but just close discussions right away.
  • Close all RMs and discussions right away, but don't delete.
  • Close all RMs right away, but let discussions go on.
The first is objectionable because drive-by editors might not understand why their post was deleted and start edit warring. For the proponents of the change, it also might delete valuable arguments or data
The fourth is objectionable because that's not much better than what happens now and simply cements positions.
The second also might delete valuable arguments or data (although less of that tends to occur in an initial RM posting that would be closed immediately).
Perhaps the third option is the best compromise: close everything right away, but don't delete anything. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The third version is what I had always assumed was to be done if the moratorium passes. Deleting anything would just lead to edit wars as people who are unaware of the moratorium keep trying to readd their comments. --Khajidha (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I meant "piling-up the evidence" kind of discussion. It is not really a discussion when it is just list of new sources. Better to be on a talk (sub)page, because people may want to add it into the article right away (and this source uses Kyiv, and this one, and this one...). Just "FYI" list which will be relevant no sonner than 1 July 2020 or whenever moratorium ends. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Piznajko proposed something similar last year (Talk:Kiev/naming/Archive_12#List_of_English-language_media_outlets_now_using_Kyiv_spelling_(will_be_continuously_updated;_don't_archive)) and it was roundly rejected as being an inappropriate use of this talk page. New sources can be added to the article without any discussion about the naming of the article. There is no point in piling them up here, if there is no discussion about moving the article. If you want a list of such sources, that's what your sandbox is for. --Khajidha (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Hm, and did it help that you rejected it? No. RMs, repeated arguments, new puzzled people... It is preparation for the move (request) next year. Collaborated preparation so it can't be hidden in my sandcastle. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
(ec) I have to agree with User:Khajidha on this. Talk:Kiev and Talk:Kiev/naming are not the places to create a storehouse of evidence. That's what your personal sandbox is for (wherever you store it). The point of the moratorium is to take a break and come at the topic with fresh eyes in July. Watching User:Chrzwzcz build their case will do nothing but encourage opponents to do the same and there is no break and no chance for all editors to soften their positions (in either direction) for a productive discussion. Keep the new data hidden. (Of course, no one is deluded to think that at 0001 01 JUL 2020 there won't be a deluge of text and minutiae and a request to move the article before dawn.) In other words "prepare" elsewhere, not here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Preparation for the move request and collaborating on that preparation on this page (or at Talk:Kiev/naming) is nothing more than a move discussion under a different label. That's precisely what the moratorium is here to prevent. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Hide the evidence because it would hurt your eyes. Hm. Well, you do your thing but it won't help like it did not work in the past. People WILL bring their evidence, they don't care about 10 people which decided what they personally want. They won't read megabytes of previous discussion, they won't know what your moratorium means. Now it means the n-word is completelly forbidden, (name beeing the n-word). Glad you told me, in that case I change my position to 3 months. "New sources can be added to the article without any discussion about the naming of the article" - meh, you won't allow it in pretenses like "not relevant", "too many examples" or "attempt to bypass name discussion moratorium". Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
No new editor's materials will be deleted. I don't know where you got that idea. Their posts will be closed without discussion, not deleted. What we are asking is that you, as an active editor here who knows what is going on, don't add to the mess by storing your megabytes of "argument" here and to respect the moratorium. I have been assuming good faith on your part to this point, but if all you want to do is to make this Talk Page a one-sided argument for your point of view without having opponents to distract you and your efforts to persuade those who haven't participated before, then I might suspect your motives. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree (with User:Kahastok). 1 July 2020 seems to be the fulcrum around which both the bulk of the short-termers and the long-termers can compromise. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
If a 1 July 2020 MR fails, a 3-4 month pause is the natural outcome, as suggested in WP:NO CONSENSUS: "Successful move re-requests generally, though certainly not always, take place at least three months after the previous one." A reflection: instead of a long discussion about the moratorium and a second one about it's length, would'nt have taken less effort to simply state a no consensus and suggest waiting at least 3 months ? And after 3 months, if nothing has changed, simply answer "nothing new under the Sun, so, once more, no consensus and lets see next 3 months." ? The discussions above look more as a political statement than other. And if at the end of the year, grows such a general consensus about changing to the proposed naming, any moratorium here decided would be simply moot. --Robertiki (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
That's ONLY in the case of "no consensus". No failed RM for "Kiev" > "Kyiv" has ever been "no consensus" (except when the closing is noted as "no consensus for move" rather than "strong consensus for no move" [which is has always been]). Just look at the closing for the last one: "strong consensus". Your definition of "consensus" is idiosyncratic and not standard Wikipedia understanding. Nothing changes in three months in this issue. Six months should be the minimum time between formal RMS (that's been the case historically here anyway. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

8 months, 1 July 2020 ? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Can we close and enact this now, please? --Khajidha (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please. Kahastok talk 21:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose any moratorium – The increased media coverage in the west about Ukraine will ensure this will be resolved by years end. We are adding to the confusion by vehemently holding on to the status quo. Fuck the New York Times. It is time for us to align with common usage.[2][3][4][5]--- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
You obviously haven't been listening to any of the public testimony in Congress, where everyone is saying "Kiev" except for the two ambassadors to Ukraine. Your position is noted, but is based on an assumption that you have no evidence for. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
As a note... It is a very different thing in saying something rather than writing something. It could change to the Kyiv spelling in months to perhaps a year or more. But even if the wikipedia title changes to Kyiv, it will still be pronounced as "Key-ev" in English for decades or more or forever. The words are too similar looking for anyone to change how they say it. It's not like it's being changed to the city of "Fred." Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I never did work out how Kyiv was intended to be pronounced in English. The obvious /kjɪv/ feels very unstable. Say it twenty times fast and you end up with either /kɪv/ or /tʃɪv/. Approximating the Ukrainian gives /ˈkɪjiːv/, but in my accent that's not meaningfully distinguishable from /kiːv/.
If anyone can give a better idea - by which I mean something that you can source and that actually conforms to English phonological rules - it should probably go into the article. Kahastok talk 23:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter how it is "supposed" to be pronounced, unless it's spelled Keve everyone will continue saying it as key-ev (two syllables). I've never heard it any other way no matter how it gets spelled. Like here, or here, or here,... The most any American will do if they happen upon Kyiv is pronounce it Key-iv. We do not pronounce yi as a single syllable long E. So while this article may eventually turn into Kyiv, it'll still be probably 99-1 in favor of two syllable Key-ehv. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
"y" is a glottal sound which does not exist in English, so that it can not be pronounces in English any close to how it pronounced in Ukrainian.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I have listed on WP:RFCC. Since there's a risk it'll stay there for months, I suggest that we wait a day or two and then either post to WP:AN or just close with consensus for a moratorium up to 1 July 2020. Kahastok talk 19:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose a moratorium on discussion. The article should be moved when it should be moved. Proposals with new information should be given a voice, especially now because there have been more developments in usage of Kyiv in the last several weeks than since the start of these discussions in 2003. WP:TALK says the prime values of talk pages are communication, courtesy, and consideration. Michael Z. 2019-11-19 00:31 z

A sad end to the moratorium?[edit]

It seems that User:Chrzwzcz wants to turn this page into a personal forum where he can argue for the move and accumulate data without restriction and without dissenting discussion while the rest of us observe a moratorium on discussions of Kiev>Kyiv. If that is indeed his intent, then the moratorium is a dead issue. I doubt that any opponents of the move will want to let Chrzwzcz push his point of view without dissenting voices. If I have misinterpreted Chrzwzcz's intent (which seems pretty clear above), then please correct me. But until Chrzwzcz changes his intent to turn this page into his personal POV pushing page or there is support for a moratorium with teeth, I will no longer try to facilitate this effort. It seems that the interminable arguments will continue. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You misinterpreted it and twisted my "motives" drastically. And now you can delete this section.Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
How is it bad to sum up all evidence what was already mentioned and did not suffice? To stop repetition. How is it bad to show, that new evidence is also worthless, because we have moratorium. Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
"Summing up evidence" is nothing more than presenting to visitors to this page a section that says "Here is the evidence for the move" in violation of the moratorium. The moratorium is to limit all discussions of whether this page should be "Kiev" or "Kyiv". If you have your "evidence" listed on this page, and you continue to add to that "evidence", that is nothing more than a discussion of the move and your argument for the move. Just because you label it something else doesn't make it something else. It is a discussion of the proposed move. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Postponed discussion to RM. Postponed. Well aranged list of sources that did not suffice in the past, and list of new sources, that maybe will suffice next time. There's no devil's motives. Just clear, quick list, to avoid repetition, to avoid repetition, to avoid repetition. You haven't see in these discussions anybody who brings new definitive source - And you have to tell him/her - "nothing new, we heard this year ago"? No? Now you would have a list: This WAS considered, nothing new. This was not considered, but it will be next time when moratorium ends and someone will do new RM. (When we have discussion about "alterior" motives, heres mine:) Sometimes I suspect you all love to discuss this, because how many times you posted the same response which could have been avoided by my proposed "list of already heard arguments". Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
And if you start listing your "evidence", do we get to object to pieces or offer counter-evidence so that your list isn't prejudicial? How does that make it any different than a move discussion in violation of the moratorium? If you get to have your "evidence" here, then so do your opponents. Then we're right back to where we are right now--sick and tired of the constant pushing for a move based on millimeters of change. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
All of which is covered by saying "see the NUMEROUS discussions above. We will not consider any move until <date>". --Khajidha (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
(ec) And User:Chrzwzcz, you still don't get the point. The point is that there will be no discussions or "added evidence" during the moratorium. That includes you continuing to add "evidence" throughout the moratorium. A moratorium on discussion is a halt on any activity related to a move request on this page (no one cares what you keep track of on your own talk page or sandbox). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
To avoid repetition, to avoid repetition, to avoid repetition. Counter-evidence, evidence, you may call it "commented list of evidence". To consider move is forbidden, fine. To prepare for next (eventual) consideration is evidently also denied. Why are you so against simple list of already heard arguments? Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Because that's just repeating the arguments. --Khajidha (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
And, as I said, preparing for future discussions is something you should do in your sandbox. --Khajidha (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, you think that your moratorium will stop people to bring new evidence into discussion? Do you really think you won't hear any new evidence here in next (x) months? That you will be protected from this topic to evaluate it with fresh eyes in (x) months? It did not stop in the past, try it again and again and again. OR, hear me ot, you can dedicate one thread for that think I said, and it may change. Or your thing will work this time around magically. Now, just now, when more and more evidence occurs and more and more people will be eager to contribute. New people. Well, I wanted to help, I don't think I am unreasonable here, you want to try the same thing which failed so many times before. Is your "let's not pile all supporting evidence together to one short list to give someone wrong ideas" really the reasonable way? Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Do you read these? Why should my personal sandbox be dedicated for preparation for future discussion? How would those random future supporters know, that specially MY personal sandbox is Wikipedia's central point for that? My sandbox, when I am not THE supporter, I just call for open mind, pros (and cons) list! Chrzwzcz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Who said anything about others seeing your sandbox? I said that if YOU (singular, the user Chrzwzcz) want such a list, then YOU (singular, the user Chzrwzcz) should make those notes in your sandbox. --Khajidha (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
A moratorium has never been tried in the past. The thing that a moratorium will do is this: A new editor shows up thinking they've just invented sliced bread. They post. Whatever editor sees the post first simply closes it with a note to look at the top of the page to the moratorium. No debate, no argument, no evaluation of evidence. Then if the editor pursues the matter or edit wars, there are other administrative actions that can be done. That is all new and has not been tried on this page before. If a new editor has a piece of "evidence" that you haven't seen, then copy and paste it to your sandbox. The point of the moratorium is to not debate in any way--that includes a list of "evidence", either pro or con. If you want to organize the "evidence", organize to your heart's content. Just don't do it here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
If you want new editors to see your collection, we might even agree to put a link to your sandbox in the moratorium notice. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Or you can politely guide them with link to list of already invented things, like that sliced bread of yours. Ah, we don't keep such list of invented things, and we are not willing to (POV pushing or whatnot), we rather repeat and repeat and repeat. So repeat you will, mark my words :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
(ec) If other editors come along occasionally, that's one thing. What you propose is to systematically abuse the fact that we intend to close (rather than delete) proposals so that you can use the talk page as a gathering point for "evidence" that you intend to use for a future RM. In doing so, you effectively porpose to attempt to nullify the moratorium entirely.
That would be gaming the system.
If you wish to collect your own evidence, put it in your own sandbox. If other people want to collect their own evidence, then they can put it in their own sandboxes. "How would those random future supporters know"? Do they need to? The RM is not supposed to be based on a pre-prepared campaign of handpicked editors. That would also be gaming the system.
We're supposed to be coming in as disinterested editors aiming for the best result for Wikipedia. You can collect evidence in your sandbox if you feel you need to. Other people can collect any evidence that they feel they need, in their own sandboxes. And if and when a future RM comes up we can discuss it then. Kahastok talk 21:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
What is naming subpage for? Discussing the name. Evaluate previous evidence, make a neat short list, so that new people do not repeat the same argument/mistake and opposers do not have to repeat the same counterargument again and again. I am amazed how simple pros-cons list can be dismissed as harming for wikipedia. New people will see it as lacking common sense, silencing the reason, winning for long term bureaucrats, I am telling you that. As I said, you think this system will work, I don't. I was willing to give the supporters a platform (thread on naming subpage) where they can semi-quietly wait and gather evidence -- you are afraid that cooperated effort and exchange of experience is a preprepared campaign and it should not be allowed, people should do their reaearch solo, no cooperation (or let's say whispering) is allowed in case of moratorium. Other pages do not have dedicated naming subpage, so I can see here some differences what moratorium could mean. No RMs, fine. No preparing for the next one on dedicated subpage - why the #@%& not? You opposers wold know what to be prepared for, at least it is transparent ;) Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Or at the very least: to make a list of already heard arguments now and freeze it for the duration of the moratorium. I won't, you can see my English :P Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
It sounds like your aim is to try and organise your formations on a WP:BATTLEGROUND. This is not supposed to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND with two entrenched sides. This is supposed to be all of us trying, together, to reach the right conclusion based on policy.
And that is far more likely to happen if the editors in question haven't spent the previous eight months dealing with the same arguments based on the same sources and from the same editors with only minor or incremental change every time. Which if you get your way is what will have happened, because you cannot expect that people will let you get away with systematically gaming the moratorium without response.
I do not know what position I will take in any putative future RM, because that will depend on the position at the time.
The whole point of a moratorium is that we don't have these discussions, to prevent disruption caused to this article by incessant naming debates. If you were to insist on trying to subvert that intention, on gaming the moratorium such that you can continue the disprution to the article, then I think it would be fair for the community to decide to take appropriate action to prevent you from doing so.
If people want to review previous discussions, then they are best advised to review the archives, which are prominently placed at the top of this talk page. This will give far better context than some kind of "list of already heard arguments" which could never be complete. Kahastok talk 23:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
"What is naming subpage for? Discussing the name." Yes, and this moratorium means that we are not discussing it until it ends. This page should go quiet until the moratorium is up. --Khajidha (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Battleground? Nonsense. Simple list of already heard arguments. Period. Do it now and freeze it during moratorium. Is it sooo bad? Do you relly expect new people would read all this text without substance? This wikipedia rules and bickering? You really don't have any empathy for newcomers, you do not indeed. I wanted to help, you know better, you enjoy it. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
"Do you really expect new people would read all this text?" Yes. That's the way it works. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Taivo, that is how it supposed to work. However, many users prefer not to read all of that (which is quite undertsandable, because discussions are long and confusing, and good arguments are diluted with various garbage), so

I think the solution could include the following steps:

  1. To summarize the most important arguments supporting the move;
  2. To summarize the most important arguments against the move (which are currently more convincing);
  3. When a consensus about a duration of the moratorium is achieved, put a message about that on the talk page's top, AND supplement it with a summary of these pro et contra.

I see no reason why cannot we do that. Moreover, that will bring everything in system, and will help to avoid repetitions in future discussions. The only requirement is that the summary of arguments should be brief.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Paul gets it. Others present only possibility for newcomers - to read lengthy discussions like this one thread about nothing, nothing. It can be summarized very briefly "opposers don't want summarizations, because reasons... WP: This and WP: made-up and WP: Bureaucracy prevails". Something so simple like quick list of previously mentioned argumentation is WP: Crime against humanity. Enjoy your misused rules. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Almost six years ago[edit]

I don't know if the source was already cited, if so I beg all you pardon: "Is It Time For The West To Stop Calling It 'Kiev' And Start Calling It 'Kyiv'?". I have a question: is it a complete resume of the arguments in support and against the proposed RM ? If so, it could be a suggested reading for all next RMs. Peace to all. --Robertiki (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

That's actually a good starting point and is a better introduction to the post-moratorium discussions for new participants than User:Chrzwzcz's proposed unprocessed accumulation of arguments. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
It was something else but I don't care anymore. I am outnumbered so no need to further explain myself although misunderstood. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Time to close discussion and implement the Consensus[edit]

It's time to implement the two consensuses that developed on this page over the last few weeks.

  • A moratorium that is clearly stated here and at Talk:Kiev/naming that will immediately close formal Requests for Move and discussions about name changes without discussion.
  • The next open date for considering a Request for Move will be 1 July 2020.

I don't know how to build templates in Wikipedia or else I'd do it. The discussion has virtually ended and it's time to implement. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Something like this, based on the one formerly at Talk:Czech Republic?

Kahastok talk 22:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


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.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2019[edit]

Since all mentioned sources use the lesser used version of the name, a citation or some precise examples would be useful after the following sentence:

Some English-language news sources continue to use Kiev, 158.129.54.91 (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you doubting the statement is true? It is self-evident and easy to confirm. I don’t see the point of listing examples, so maybe you could propose how you would write this. Michael Z. 2019-11-19 15:14 z
Can't find their styleguide, but all of Reuters' current Ukraine-related stories use "Kiev". https://www.reuters.com/places/ukraine --Khajidha (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Reuters’ Handbook of Journalism seems to be offline or gone, but the archived version doesn’t mention Kyiv. Their website search shows plenty of hits for the spelling Kyiv, too. I suppose someone there is using their old dictionary or atlas for reference. Michael Z. 2019-11-22 16:56 z
@Khajidha: American world-known newspaper New York Times wrote several articles with a translation of Kyiv https://www.nytimes.com/search?query=kyiv [November 13 and 14, 2019 ]

It is necessary to make an analysis of how many international aerports in English-speaking countries use Kyiv.--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

A search of news stories comparing "kiev trump -kyiv" to "kyiv trump -kiev" (because that is the biggest story about Ukraine in English language media right now) currently returns more than 10 times the results (1,900,000 compared to 140,000) for the traditional spelling. --Khajidha (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
And it will still be pronounced Key-ehv no matter the spelling. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
That’s wrong, User:Khajidha (did’t we just have this conversation?). Those figures on the first results page are completely inaccurate estimates. Page through to the last page. The actual numbers are Kiev 119, Kyiv 172Michael Z. 2019-11-20 14:32 z
And I STILL get 109 Kiev:77 Kyiv. --Khajidha (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Yup, Google shows different results to different people, depending on their location, logged-in status, maybe search history, and I don’t know what else. Michael Z. 2019-11-21 00:41 z
Which is why we are SUPPOSED to be going to a moratorium. There is just too much flux. Absent unambiguous proof that Kyiv is always the more common form now, status quo stands. That's why we are saying wait 8 months, give it time to prove itself. --Khajidha (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean “SUPPOSED to”? I see a poll about the proposed length, but no consensus to impose a moratorium on editors. Michael Z. 2019-11-20 15:05 z
You're not reading the same page I am then, because there is a clear consensus to do such a thing. --Khajidha (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The situation progresses very quickly. It is not even a full month since the last RM and the ratio is much much more in favour for Kyiv. Wait a little for dust to settle is OK, why not, but wait 8 months in situation like this, when some comments are no longer valid because mentioned "against-sources" already switched since then? Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Mzajac you need to read all the threads over the last 2-3 weeks, not just the last one. There was a clear consensus, from editors on both sides of the Kiev/Kyiv issue, to impose a moratorium on change requests and change discussions. Then there was a separate thread about how long and 8 months (or longer) was the majority view by about 2/3 majority. Since there has been no significant shift in those consensuses in the last week, the moratorium should be implemented (but I don't know how to make the appropriate template). That doesn't prevent you or anyone else from posting some incremental shift in usage from week to week, but it does mean that your comment or request will be closed without discussion. We don't want to look for 8 months at the infinitessimmal shifts from week to week. We're tired of the constant shouting every time that a tiny movement is made. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
To step-in: infinitessimmal shifts? More like jumps. At this speed Kyiv will have 150 % in 8 months (joke). Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I was not aware of all that. Michael Z. 2019-11-21 00:17 z
User:Chrzwzcz, if Kyiv were, indeed, that consistently favored over Kiev on 1 July 2020, then I doubt that many of us would object to a move at that time. We'll see at that time. But I certainly don't think that Ukraine will lose its independence to Russia if Wikipedia doesn't move this article before then :) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Remaining airports will change the spelling as they update their systems and displays, User:Bohdan Bondar, Because IATA just changed, after the US BGN updated its database, following Ukraine’s Derzhheokadastr, the authority on Ukrainian toponyms. Michael Z. 2019-11-20 15:02 z

Pronunciation ("keev")[edit]

I believe this issue is distinct from the naming issue, but my apologies if it is not. However, since it is somewhat related to that contentious topic, I thought I'd post here rather than try to make an edit myself.

So, my question: Should this page reflect an additional pronunciation of "keeve"? An opinion piece in today's Washington Post points out that, in the ongoing U.S. Congressional impeachment hearings, witnesses (who are mainly U.S. diplomats) have appeared to pronounce the city as "KEEVE (rhymes with Steve)," which has attracted notice and some confusion among many Americans. The author explains that, "after simplifying Ukrainian’s guttural vowels for American speakers," this is "the proper pronunciation" of the Ukrainian name. (The New York Times had an article last week on the same topic, acknowledging the "KEEV" pronunciation but not endorsing it.)

Since this pronunciation is gaining wide exposure in US media (through both the hearings and reliable-source articles about them), should it be added to the lead as an alternate (approximate) English-language pronunciation? --EightYearBreak (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The "keeve" pronunciation is not listed as an accepted pronunciation in any dictionary, and is not particularly close to the way Ukrainians say it. If you listen to the six pronunciations on Forvo, all by Ukrainian speakers, they have two things in common: they use two syllables, and the final consonant is w — closer to an English "U" than an English "V". (One speaker uses a V-like sound that's not English "V"). The author of the article, Nina Jankowicz, pronounces it pretty well on Twitter, so my argument is not with the way she says it, but with her transcription of it into English. (I should note that Ms. Jankowicz, an expert on Ukrainian affairs, speaks Ukranian but is more fluent in English and Russian, so that may influence her pronunciation). --ABehrens (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter one bit whether [ki:v] is a correct or accepted pronunciation in any Ukrainian dictionary. All that matters here is that English speakers are pronouncing it that way. It is an English pronunciation that you will hear over and over and over again now that about half the population is trying to produce "Kyiv" in English. It doesn't matter at all how Ukrainians say it. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Maybe an alternate Ukrainian pronunciation. Unless you're a diplomat having to use Ukrainian language approximations, no one in English will really use the pronunciation of anything except Key-ehv, no matter how it's spelled. Heck, even in Kiev, 52% of the population speak Russian and 23% speak Ukrainian (with the rest a mixture of both or other language). The locals probably don't practice what the gov't is preaching. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
We need some order in the lead as it's getting messy and hard to read. Usually you see one form and and alternate form, but I just reverted what was becoming a mess. Websters pronounces it Kee-you... do we add that to the lead as well? Other sources say Ukrainians pronounce it more like Ki-youv and that Keeve is the simplified version our diplomats use because it's so hard to pronounce it in English. I think we need one pronunciation key for Kiev and that's about it for the lead. Maybe one for Kyiv. The rest need their own section in the main body. It was really getting hard to read the lead over so many alliterations of the form of the words. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Simplification is important, but what is also important is that we don't substitute a Ukrainian pronunciation of "Kyiv" for an English one. Websters' pronunciation is a Ukrainian one that was published before the word was in any kind of common use in English, when [kijɛv] was still the only real English pronunciation. Now all you hear is [ki:v] and [kijɛv] (and there are reliable sources for that pronunciation that are current and based on actual English speaker usage and not on Ukrainian idealization. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No one is saying “Keeve.“ A journalist who isn’t familiar with Ukrainian heard “Keeve.” Listen closely. The American diplomats in the hearings are pronouncing it like Ukrainian /ˈkɪ·jiv/ \KIH-yeev\ or /ˈkɪ·jiw/ \KIH-yeew\ , but when they say it fast the two syllables run together and the vowels become a glide /kɪ͡iv/ or /kɪ͡iw/, which sounds a bit like “cave” or “KO” (before Kiev, a common historical English spelling was Kiow, showing that the West was exposed to the Ukrainian pronunciation before the Russian one). Michael Z. 2019-11-22 17:09 z

"A journalist who isn't familiar with Ukrainian" is incorrect. The vast majority of Americans are unfamiliar with Ukrainian and are using a spelling pronunciation of [ki:v]. That's the point of the article. The diplomats are a different matter, of course, they have to work with native speakers of Ukrainian. But you cannot base English pronunciation on what it's "supposed to be based on Ukrainian". We document what is, not what should be. I've lived in Ukraine and am married to a Ukrainian, but as a native speaker of English, I use [ki:v] in English because that's what all the other Americans use and it's easier with English phonotactics. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
[????] Are you aware this discussion is in reference to the WaPo article? In impeachment hearings Taylor and Kent said “Kyiv” in Ukrainian. While watching, journalist Nate Silver failed to perceive the nuance because, I presume, he’s unfamiliar with Ukrainian and didn’t pick up the phonemes, and tweeted “Wait so Kiev is pronounced KEEVE (rhymes with Steve)?!?” Nina Jankowicz wrote this article about pronunciation in response to that tweet.
Most English-speakers continue to pronounce it KEY-ev, just like they always have, regardless of whether they use the old spelling or the current one. No one says “Keeve,” rhymes with Steve. Michael Z. 2019-11-22 20:10 z
Actually that's exactly what the news is saying. They are trying to tell us that Keeve rhymes with Steve. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


I'm not sure which dialect would see [kɪ͡iw] sounding like cave (/ke͡ɪv/)? And note that [ɪ͡i] is not an English phoneme.
In my dialect, [ɪ͡i] is actually a common realisation of /iː/. So trying to draw a distinction between [kɪ͡iv] and /kiːv/ (i.e. Keeve) is basically meaningless. And [kɪ͡iw] would probably be heard as keel.
For me, the most obvious spelling pronunciation of Kyiv is /ˈkiː(j)ɪv/. (I exclude /kjɪv/, because such a word wouldn't survive first contact with a sentence). Based on the IPA, that's quite different from the Ukrainian pronunciation, but - ironically - very similar to the Russian. Kahastok talk 18:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I did not think “official” pronunciation would become a thing, but the Moscow correspondent for US National Public Radio tweeted: “It's official: @NPR is no longer pronouncing the Ukrainian capital "KEE-ev," the Russian way, and is approximating the Ukrainian pronunciation, "KEE-iv." (Ukrainians can thank Rudy Giuliani and/or 3 amigos for the change.)” Michael Z. 2019-11-23 15:47 z

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2019[edit]

Closed under the moratorium Kahastok talk 23:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
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.

Change Kiev to Kyiv. Kyiv is the official spelling recognized by the Ukrainian government whereas Kiev is one established by the Federation of Russia, which is meant to dehumanize Ukrainians. The official search should show Kyiv.

Thanks Sac5124 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Not done Per consensus, see discussions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

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 is the official name[edit]

Hi, User:Khajidha. I don’t understand your objection to writing “Kyiv, the spelling based on the Ukrainian name, is official and gaining in usage.” And if you think it is official with “some sort of modifications.”

But the scope of the official name seems quite self-evident, and open, and unqualified, and furthermore it is all spelled out in the following few paragraphs of the article, with references. It is the city’s official name for the city, in English. As the capital, it is also the state’s official name for the city. It is also official in every international database that I can think of having any remote official relationship to its officialness, including the UN, the US BGN, IATA airports, etcetera. Please consult the article for details.

And this appears to be a commonly acceptable way to state this in Wikipedia. The infobox at the top of the page has “Kyiv” in the “official name” field, which carries no additional qualifications. Going through some large city articles I see that for Beijing “the official Latin alphabet abbreviation for Beijing is ‘BJ’” without qualifications, that Shanghai “Shanghai is officially abbreviated 沪 (Hù/Vu2) in Chinese,” Lagos is known “officially as ‘Lagos Metropolitan Area’” and “Abuja officially gained its status as the capital of Nigeria,“ in Dhaka “The Bangabhaban is the official residence and workplace of the President of Bangladesh,” in Istanbul “Turks also used the name Beyoğlu (today the official name for one of the city’s constituent districts),” Tokyo is “officially Tokyo Metropolis,” in Moscow “official languages” comprise “Russian,” in 1932 in São Paulo there was “a balance of 93 official deaths,” and in Kinshasa “an official census conducted in 1984 counted 2.6 million residents,” Cairo’s "official name al-Qāhirah  (Arabic: القاهرة‎) means ‘the Vanquisher’ or ‘the Conqueror,’” and Seoul is “officially the Seoul Special City.” All without qualifications.

I see you’ve just proposed an edit. It is too restrictive. It is not just the transliteration method that derives the name Kyiv which is official, the name is official too. Michael Z. 2019-11-23 19:12 z

Some of your examples are also misphrased and others actually do relate the "official" status to an explicit authority. The paragraph in question here is about the name used in general English discourse. There is no authority to make something official in that context. The later paragraphs of the section explain that "Kyiv" is the official Ukrainian form. --Khajidha (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The main heading in the infobox always reflects the title of the article followed by important alternative forms in the native language and in English. There is no "official name" in English since this is not an English placename. There is a common usage name in English ("Kiev" for now), the official name in Ukrainian (Київ) which has the normal transliteration in English of "Kyiv". Many placenames in Ukraine also list a common Russian name with transliteration (Киев). While this particular infobox lacks the Russian form, it is perfectly in line with Wikipedia's practice in all other respects. The only change that I would suggest is putting "Kyiv" in parens following Київ, which is normal practice for transliterations in Ukrainian cities. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, this phrasing is getting bounced around like a hacky sack with all the back and forth editing. Perhaps it should go back the way it was originally and you all iron out the differences here, and only then insert the final form? It saves on all the reversions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

My point is that the official status or otherwise of the form "Kyiv" is not relevant to that sentence. Only that the form "Kyiv" is increasing in English usage. The bit about officialness is covered quite well later in the section. My "However, the Ukrainian form Kyiv is gaining in usage in English sources." version seems to cover the point. --Khajidha (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
That is wrong. The Roman-alphabet name is official. The Roman-alphabet spelling comes from a Ukrainian law defining toponyms for international communications, and which doesn’t mention the English language. As a federal city, Kyiv is directly subordinate to state laws. The name appears on its letterhead in international communications and is in its domain name (which was changed to conform with this law). The law exists because Ukraine’s constitution refers to promoting the learning of the “languages of international communication.” The official name rightly appears in our infobox’s “official name” field.
The two important names should be mentioned at the top of the “Name” section, and that one is official is a key fact. Other cities around the world have their official names mentioned in Wikipedia articles. They are called “official name” and the scope and meaning of that statement is pretty fricken simple and clear.
Why is it so offensive to some people here to acknowledge that the Ukrainian capital, a major world city, has an official name by the simple statement that it has an official name? Michael Z. 2019-11-24 16:24 z
You'll notice that I am not objecting to saying that Kyiv is the official name when legality and officialness is what is being discussed. In this specific sentence, dealing with general English usage, it is not relevant and is already better covered later in the section. --Khajidha (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Its official name is relevant when its name is being discussed. That’s just my wacky opinion. Michael Z. 2019-11-24 17:51 z
Your latest revision balances your concerns and mine quite well. I have no objection to this form. --Khajidha (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Category: WikiProject Russia articles ?[edit]

Hello: Why added Category: WikiProject Russia articles after all the topic of discussion is translation change. Where can I read the decision to add Category: WikiProject Russia articles? It 's just weird that it 's in a city that hasn 't been part of Russia for 28 years.--Bohdan Bondar (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiProjects decide for themselves what articles are within their scope. WikiProject Russia covers Russia in its entire scope, both spatial and temporal. Articles deemed to be relevant to the history of Russia (not just the current incarnation of Russia) are quite appropriate to inclusion in that WikiProject. Looking over the history of Kiev, I see no reason to dispute that this city has been quite relevant to Russian history and see no reason to object to that WikiProject including this article. --Khajidha (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
For comparison, the article Alsace-Lorraine is in WikiProject Germany, despite being part of France for a century. --Khajidha (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

Hm. Edit by TaivoLinguist. See also my comment at #Kyiv is the official name, above, esp. “Why is it so offensive to some people here to acknowledge that the Ukrainian capital, a major world city, has an official name by the simple statement that it has an official name?”.

User:TaivoLinguist, if there are problems with the infobox template, please fix the infobox template. Let’s not second-guess the functions of the fields and vandalize the half a million articles this template appears on. Just to analyze the edit summary:

This structure matches other cities in Ukraine.
The structure is set by the template, and described in its documentation. To change it, please edit the template. By the way, there are a few other Ukrainian cities where our article title and name used do not match the spelling of the official name, including Odesa and Zaporizhzhia.
The template label "official name" is meaningless to the actual display.
Please don’t edit data for the sake of display. Please fix template problems by editing the template.
This arrangement looks better than having the "special status" note interfering with the names
Please don’t mess with data for the sake of appearance. If template elements “interfere” with each other (not sure what this means), please edit the template.

 Michael Z. 2019-11-25 16:33 z

User:Mzajac, Your "offense" is misplaced. If you actually read my comment, you'd know that my rearrangement had zero to do with whether or not "Kyiv" is the official transliteration or not and everything to do with making the infobox look better and be better understood. Your outrage is clearly focused on thin air. With that "special city" note separating "Kiev" from "Kyiv", the current infobox looks like crap. Until someone changes the way the template displays, then there is no reason why ad hoc fixes can't be made. Readers don't see the "official name" label in the template, they only see a crappy arrangement and don't know why "Kyiv" is orphaned below the "special city" note. There is no such separation at Odessa or Kharkiv, for example. Your silly outrage that "Kyiv" might not be called "official name" in the template programming labels is hampering practical solutions to a clear display problem. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
You also have a serious problem with understanding what "official name" means. "Kyiv" is not the official name of Kiev. Київ is the official name. "Kyiv" is a preferred transliteration, not the official name. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Then let’s stick to improving Wikipedia and stop pointing out each others’ serious problems.
“infobox looks like crap” – “ad hoc fixes” – “Readers don't see the "official name" label” – “crappy arrangement”. Okay. I agree that Template:Infobox settlement could use improvement. Please fix the template or report problems on the relevant talk page or project.
Please do not change data in articles, which may be linked to Wikidata or used to scrape or relate Wikipedia articles to external data. Please do not alter data that may be used by future features to be added to the template. The content of “official name” is important because it is used in Ukraine’s toponymic database, and therefore in the UN’s, in the BGN’s, in IATA, and in every international atlas and map and any other database. Please don’t mess with it or delete it, when it is entered according to the template’s instructions.
How is Kyiv not official? It is the Latin-alphabet name according to Ukrainian law, in the same way Київ is the official name according to Ukrainian law. It is the Latin-alphabet name in Ukraine’s authoritative database of place names. It appears on the city’s letterhead in official international correspondence. It appears in signage placed by the city government. What makes a place name official for you if none of that does? Michael Z. 2019-11-25 18:09 z
"may be linked to Wikidata or used to scrape or relate Wikipedia articles to external data. Please do not alter data that may be used by future features to be added to the template." Seems like "tail wagging the dog" to me. If outside sites wish to link to or scrape or relate to Wikipedia articles, that is fine. But we don't need to spend time worrying about them. And we shouldn't be crystal balling the possible future uses either. We are here to work on Wikipedia as it is, not on other sites and not on how it may be in the future. --Khajidha (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
No, ignoring the template docs and editing for appearance in your own browser, while ignoring the use of Wikipedia by other readers and editors, including those using screen readers and other assistive devices, including users of the microformats that editors have embedded in the template, is wagging the dog. Your crystal ball says “everything’s fine” because you’re contradicting what the documentation asks you to do right now. Worse if you change an article that was already compliant. This is not your personal project, it is a collaboration.
If you’re changing consistent data to something contradictory, then you’re misusing a template. If you’re justifying this with a claim that it is a workaround for a faulty template, meanwhile avoiding reporting your perceived problems on the template’s talk page, that looks like bad-faith editing for your own disregard for community standards or some personal agenda. Michael Z. 2019-11-25 19:05 z
None of which is relevant to what you said before. Before you were talking about people outside Wikipedia. If this particular part of the template actually does something here on Wikipedia, say so and tell us what it is. --Khajidha (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Please take responsibility for your edits, because I won’t. Consult the documentation when you use templates. If you choose to disregard the documentation and do something “ad hoc” with the template, but don’t be surprised if someone objects. Michael Z. 2019-11-25 20:58 z
"Official name" is a formatting command, not any kind of database or other command. It could just as easily have been called "Fred" since it's just a command to "Use X Font. Space down X far. Put a rule before the text. Etc." --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
No, it’s more than that. Please read about infobox, help:Infobox, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes. But why are you arguing about that here? Just don’t misuse infoboxes’ data fields. Put the official name in the “official name” field. Michael Z. 2019-11-25 22:17 z
@Mzajac: Ok... what are these mass changes to heaps of Ukrainian infoboxes? You can see here that it is controversial yet you go and do it to every other city? Those infoboxes were fine and summarized rather than including every name variation plus making the article title less prominent than Ukrainian usage. That seems very sketchy behavior from someone with administrative authority. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
No, those infoboxes were inconsistent and incomplete. I have not removed anything and I did not do “it.” I put the official name into the official_name field only where there was no conflict with what we’re discussing here – Kyiv is an exception because the official name is not the article title – I left the “common name” in another exception, Odesa, for example. I’ve also added additional native names, consistently entered old and new names where cities have been renamed, and added transcriptions. Why don’t you have a look at what we’re discussing and what I’m doing before you start reverting? Michael Z. 2019-11-26 01:10 z
There is such a thing as infobox bloat and it looks like that line is being crossed. Also, the infobox uses the article title if no "name" parameter is used. But if you add native names without adding a "name" parameter the infobox will use the native name, and that is wrong. You should not remove the name tag, or you need to add the name tag if you start adding a whole truckload of native or official names. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I didn’t touch the “name” parameter which remains filled. I added the official_name so it appears below. Now you’ve removed it so the spelling Kyiv that is appearing in most current news is absent from the infobox.
If you don’t like the transcription forms bloating the infobox, you think they’ll be better in the running text of the article? I didn’t cross any lines, I used the infobox parameters as they’re intended, per its docs and consistent with many other articles (e.g., Tibet Autonomous Region, Gaza City). And I’m reverting back until you figure out what I actually did and what you actually object to. Michael Z. 2019-11-26 01:31 z
So now instead of the infoboxes being fairly clean and clear, they are full of irrelevant baloney that 99.999% of all users don't understand and are confused by. Why don't you also add the Soviet era names with Russian transliterations, the Empire names, the names at their founding, etc., etc., etc. The infoboxes should be just for what the average reader will encounter in the vast majority of English language sources. Six different transliterations of Mykolaiv is ridiculous. I agree with User:Fyunck(click), that you are just bloating the infoboxes with useless information. Why? To try to prove to us here at Kiev that you actually know how to use the infobox to its core (you still don't get the point, however, you're just wikilawyering now). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Four reverts in 11 hours for Mzajac, and more in the last few days, is often an instant block for most editors. And I had already let you know about the controversial edit warring. We'll see what happens with this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
We're very serious about Mzajac's edit warring. It's bad enough that he is edit warring here, but he is, in essence, spamming every other city in Ukraine with infobox bloat. This should be considered disruptive editing. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
It is disruptive and they should know better. It would be best if they self-revert their last Kiev reversion. Then discussion can continue until something is resolved. I tried to suggest more discussion before edits back with this post but that didn't work. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Transcriptions in the infobox[edit]

Let’s talk about this change that I made to the article. I left the names fields in what I thought was acceptable state, and instead added transcriptions with explanatory links in the concise infobox format. To which opposition was first brought to my attention by a revert without discussion, with a disparaging edit summary (“That seems absolutely ridiculous for the infobox, which is a super summary of a summary (TW)”). Thanks for not blocking me, guys, because I see that I did technically exceed the revert rule, but I don’t feel that my good-faith work is being appreciated.

Currently the news is full of articles about “why is it spelled Kyiv?” and “is it really pronounced Keeve”? But these are not the only spellings that are used. People will encounter others in different contexts, and want to know why and where they come from, and that is part of the context for the current newsworthy questions. These are not just alternate names, but have specific uses in academic and practical domains.

  • Kyyiv was used by the globally influential BGN and still appears in its database where it was the primary transcription until 2006, as well as in archives of US diplomacy and government, and in widely published books and maps after 1991. BGN’s GeoNames currently returns 70 names for 17 features if you search for this string. Google Books search returns 5,600 book results with this spelling.
  • Kyïv is the current spelling used by the ALA-LC, whose transcription rules are used by every English-language library and academic bibliography in the world. It is the unambiguous bibliographic search term for Ukrainian-language titles and text that mention Київ. Google Books returns 100,000 results for a quotation-mark search for this, and it looks like it is honouring the diæresis ï.
  • Kyjiv is a transcription form used in linguistics over the last century, including by the world’s most popular open encyclopedia. Google Books returns 21,000 results.
  • Kȳyiv is the transcription according to the strict British Standard 2979:1958 used by Oxford University Press, but I didn’t include it because it is rarely seen. Google Books returns one result with a bibliographic reference.
  • Kiïv is per the international standard ISO 9, but I didn’t include it because it is rarely seen. Google Books returns 4,700 results, and many are non-English-language texts.

I tried to concisely include some of this information in the article’s infobox, where it is easy to access with links to deeper explanations. But this was disparaged as “absolutely ridiculous,” “bloat,” “ridiculous infobox bloat especially when half of these are identical and all of them are useless,” a “mess” that is “hard to read” and “overkill” that “looks terrible,” “irrelevant baloney,” “useless information,” and my motives have been questioned. (Who wouldn’t be tempted to respond with “eff you too”? But I have tried to resist.)

If you all prefer, I can expand the #Name section of this article with this information -- Fyunck suggested on my talk page that “messes with detailed explanations belong in prose” with reference to editing multiple articles about Ukrainian settlements, but I don’t think he’s volunteering to add a detailed paragraph to every one, and neither am I. I think all the extra prose would be bloat, rather than a structured list of links according to the infobox framework that was made for this purpose.

The list of names in the Wikidata item d:Q1899 is not in any way helpful to readers of this article, which should at least help someone know what they are. Michael Z. 2019-11-26 16:55 z

"concise infobox format" That is why all this doesn't belong in the infobox here or on any other page. Concise. Short and to the point. If you aren't volunteering to add these detailed paragraphs to each of these cities then you shouldn't have stuck this stuff in the infoboxes. --Khajidha (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Seriously? You’re telling me editors shouldn’t add anything to Wikipedia unless Khajidha gets to set the scope of their project? That is unreasonable. Okay, then I volunteer to write those detailed paragraphs later, after the infoboxes have the straight facts. Michael Z. 2019-11-26 19:21 z
No, I'm saying that things that require all the explanation you were giving above are not the sort of thing that should be shoehorned into a concise infobox. If it requires that much detail, it needs to be prose. --Khajidha (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
This is complete overkill in the infoboxes and unnecessary. Anyone encountering one of these alternate transliterations will be doing it in a context where they are educated enough to know what they're looking at. For the vast majority of Wikipedia readers they will be confusing and useless ornamentation, masking the simple alternatives of "Kiev" and "Kyiv" that are used in the vast majority of cases now. Throughout all but the westernmost third of Ukraine, the only two forms in the infoboxes should be the Ukrainian and the Russian form. In the western third of Ukraine, the Polish form is also useful for historical works about the pre-WWII period (Rivne, Rovno, Rowne, for example). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
This information is not “useless ornamentation.” There is an encyclopedia based on “anyone who sees it already knows what it is” – but I have trouble finding it among my pocket lint. “Masking”?
Does your plan for including names have consensus at WP:WikiProject Ukraine? I guess you want to prevent anyone from adding any names unless they’ve committed to the project you’ve just outlined on a whim. Shall I remove the Crimean Tatar names I added to places where Crimean Tatar is an official language because you don’t approve? Michael Z. 2019-11-26 19:26 z
About the most I could see being added here is "Kyyiv, Kyïv, Kyjiv, Kȳyiv, and Kiïv are other forms that are found in more specialized sources". Basically saying "if you by some chance run across one of these, don't panic, it's just this city". --Khajidha (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
They are not only found in more specialized sources. Five of those are in standards that were meant to be for general use. I found Kȳyiv in a book about Hymenoptera. The ALA-LC is broadly used in every English-Language library and possibly by every English-language publisher who cites a Ukrainian source. But I guess there’s little point in repeating myself.
So is there a consensus among editors that the specific source and usage of different transcriptions of this city’s name is not encyclopedic information and doesn’t belong here? Michael Z. 2019-11-26 19:33 z
Plus, in adding to the infobox you didn't add a "name" parameter that puts the current title right at the top. You don't need that parameter if no other national or official name exists, but once you do add others you need the "name" tag for the English version. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
That’s not the topic of this section. And you’re wrong, as I already explained to you. Where the consensus article name and the official name were identical I always added an “official_name” field, which is then displayed in the infobox. I never made any edit where the article title was automatically inserted in the infobox, as far as I know. If I made a mistake, please point out where. Per DRY, it is better to have the one piece of data in one place. Please stop piling on the separate complaints against me. Please stop making this spurious complaint. Michael Z. 2019-11-26 19:37 z
And I already explained to you in the case of Krasnoperekopsk. Krasnoperekopsk was at the top of the infobox, as it should be. There was no name tag because none was needed. Once you add some other official name you should have added a name tag that said Krasnoperekopsk so it remained on top. That's it. The infobox bloat and your edit warring is a different matter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Yany Kapu/Krasnoperekopsk is in disputed territory. It has two official names and three official languages apply. You dumbed it down and now it’s incomplete, inconsistent with different names in different languages, and the article legitimizes an illegal occupation. Isn’t that vandalism? Did you consult with the other editor who was active on it before you reverted?
Also, this is irrelevant to the question of adding transcriptions, because I didn’t there. Please move this to the appropriate discussion section. Stop piling on your complaints to confuse the issue. Michael Z. 2019-11-26 20:27 z
It seems to go in one ear and out the other with you, and your answer completely skirted mine. I pointed out where, as you asked above. And the vandalism claim is complete fabrication... how is it you're an administrator? Knock off the baloney and try to work with people instead of forcing your own agenda by edit warring. Is that so hard to do? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I stopped editing infoboxes yesterday and started this thread, so please curb your desire to keep posting accusations. How did my answer skirt yours? Your edit made that article worse. Michael Z. 2019-11-26 20:51 z
I can't explain things any clearer so we have a failure to communicate. As to the facts, they speak for themselves. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Names used in English standards[edit]

If this is claimed not to be "discussion to rename this article to Kyiv", then it is closed as not being related to any change to the article per WP:NOTFORUM. However, note that moratorium discussions explicitly discussed the case of people trying to use this page to collect sources in precisely this way, and consensus was clear that such discussions were within the remit of the moratorium. Kahastok talk 18:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
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 the course of this discussion I had a glance at Wikidata d:Q1899 and its list of names, and followed links to other databases, where I gleaned this list of forms of the name of the city. Many of these are historical or have been used in specific domains. Collected here for reference. Michael Z. 2019-11-26 20:21 z

Unique forms from the above: Kief, Kiev, Kievo, Kiew, Kijev, Kijew, Kijów, Kiyev, Kiyiv, Könugard, Kyiv, Kyïv, Kyjiv, Kyjiw, Kyyiv, Киев, Київ.

 Michael Z. 2019-11-26 20:21 z


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.

Hi, user:Kahastok. Since this article has an entire #Name section, I thought the information I discovered could be useful and contribute to additional encyclopedic material. WP:TALK suggests “Share material: The talk page can be used to "park" material removed from the article due to verification or other concerns, while references are sought or concerns discussed. New material can be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article; this is an especially good idea if the new material (or topic as a whole) is controversial.” If your moratorium intends to prevent that, would you please point us to a list of what’s now prohibited here? Does your moratorium have any limits? Thanks. Michael Z. 2019-11-28 04:10 z

User:Mzajac, that use of this Talk Page was proposed by one pro-Kyiv editor, but rejected by all other editors who were active in the discussion. This page was not to be used by participants in the moratorium discussion to "park" information here or to "prepare new material" for the post-moratorium discussion. If a previously uninvolved editor makes an edit, it is preserved, but this page is not for "honing arguments". You have a personal sandbox for that purpose. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean “post-moratorium edits”? Is there a moratorium on editing, too? I thought it was move requests. Please, where can I find out what’s still permitted and not permitted here? What is this page for? Michael Z. 2019-11-28 08:38 z
"Post-moratorium edits" are exactly what the prefix "post-" means: edits made after the implementation of the moratorium. What is allowed are edits that improve the article, but have nothing to do with changing the name of the article in a fairly broad sense--including amassing evidence or honing arguments. There are hundreds of topics that this article covers that do not involve the name of the city. If your only business here is talking about "Kiev" and "Kyiv", then you need to find something else to do until 1 July 2020. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Taivo. I note that this is not material "removed from the article due to verification or other concerns". This is not "new material" that is being "prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article". And I note that the consensus for the moratorium was perfectly clear that it encompassed informal discussions on the subject of the name of the article, and that it covered people trying to use the talk page to gather "evidence" for a future discussion on the name of the article - which appears to be precisely what you are attempting to do here.
Either this is an attempt to start a discussion on the article name in these terms, or it is an attempt to start a discussion with no purpose whatsoever. Whether it be per the moratorium or per WP:NOTFORUM, it does not belong here. Kahastok talk 19:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Consensus? It was not so clear, I think you are imagining it completely. Preparation for the next RM, gathering the evidence for 1 July 2020, is OK and has clear purpose - gathering it now before it is forgotten in the future :) Man, that effort against even gathering, why? Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Gather it in your sandbox, not here. --Khajidha (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The consensus was clear. Like Khajidha said, gather it in your sandbox. Gathering it here is nothing more than discussing a change without "discussing". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Hm, clear, you two said so and "clear". I said several times: sandbox is useless, it prevents cooperated effort of more users. Noone knows something like it exists. Unless you allow a huge ad is placed here - hey let's meet on my sandbox, or Mzajac's. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Good. Such a "cooperated effort" would break both WP:CANVASS and WP:GAME. Kahastok talk 18:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Unbelievable. Don't, ban, forbid, silence, moratorium, stop, rule is on my side because I said so. Nice regime here on Wikipedia. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
If you don't like Wikipedia's rules, then you can leave and spend the time doing something else that you enjoy more. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The point of the moratorium was for everyone to shut up about the subject of this article's name for a time, not for one side to shut up and let your side "accumulate data and marshal arguments" without interference from objectors. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
How's that working so far. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
As with trying to establish all new habits... --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Objectors can rest and supporters gather evidence on someone's sandbox out of sight. How is it different when each supporter does it individually on his own sandbox. How is it secret, sandboxes are public. Objectors can prepare for the next "attack" too if thay want, such gathering is very public. Such interpretation of rules is very strict and convenient denying "freedom of assembly"! :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this really morphing into a soapbox for the Bill of Rights???? Goodness. This topic was already discussed and we should close up shop here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind the fact that the Bill of Rights only restricts the actions of the United States government, not those of individuals. Groups of people (say, Wikipedia editors) are free to enact rules such as those mentioned before concerning canvassing and gaming the system. --Khajidha (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)