This is an archive of past discussions about Kyiv. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello. I am living in Kyiv now and I am willing to take photos (Metros, streets, buildings, statues... whatever) but would like to know what is most needed. Is there a list that I missed and if not can we come up with one? Thanks. Greg.ory16:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Publish them on Commons, Metro is desperately needed. Please register so that you have a talk page and I tell you details of what is required.--Kuban kazak16:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The Ukrainian one, not the Russian one. It's barely intelligible, at least to my ears. It seems truncated and somewhat muffled. Maybe someone would like to re-record it and upload a better and improved version. Peter196814:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes please, its difficult to make sense of the Kyiv/Kyiv issue without knowing how the latter ought to sound. People tend to forget that simple convenience of pronunciation in the "host" language is an important issue in toponymy. Sumergocognito07:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Rearrange pix
could someone please rearrange the galleries into logical groupings? (example: Cathedrals and churches gallery, Buildings gallery, Monumentsallery) or something similar? WoodElf06:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I made up the table of demographics, but could not figure out a way to cite within the table. So instead, I inserted a temporary sentence in the section's 1st paragraph. If you can fix it please do.--Riurik21:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I tried also, and could not do it in a reasonable way: It'll work if we place the <ref></ref> on the pop. numbers like so.
The histpop template doesn't allow for a citation. I think the table has to be remade from scratch (not too hard, using the template as a prototype), or the template must be modified to allow this. I can do this, but I won't have time for two or three days. —MichaelZ. 2006-07-29 06:48 Z
I made a new table based on the found here. It took some time recalculating mm > inches, etc, and changing the color codes, but in the end it looks good. Numbers/calculations were double checked, and the table seems to be accurate and ready for everyone's scrutiny.--Riurik18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Holy city?
Could someone explain this one being categorized as a holy city (Category:Holy cities) and being added to the List of holy cities as "Origin of Slavic Christianity"? Kiev has nothing to do with the "origin of Slavic Christianity", which emerged in Great Moravia and the First Bulgarian Empire in the middle of the 9th century, whereas Kievan Rus' wasn't Christianized until as late as 988. That said, I've reworded the thing as "Origin of East Slavic Christianity" and I'd like to see some evidence as to whether Kiev is really considered a "holy city" by the Orthodox Christians and why. No offence, but I wouldn't categorize a city that is not of universal Orthodox ecclesiastical importance as a holy city. If no convincing evidence is provided, I shall remove it from the category it doesn't belong to and remove it from the list of holy cities. Todor→Bozhinov16:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Restoring as an origin of East Slavic Christianity. "The supreme centre and for all time is Jerusalem. But there are other lesser historic centres - Rome, Constantinople, Kiev, Moscow."[1] --KPbIC06:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Picture Gallery
I suggest that the picture galleries from architectural monuments and views of kiev be merged into a single Picture Gallery at the end of the article, before the references. --WoodElf09:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Adding new link to External links
Hello,
recently I've added new link to External links, but wiki moderator removed it.
This site (www.mykiev.info) doesn't advertise anything, but only gives the most full information about Kiev landmarks. There is no any analogue site in the internet both in Russian and English languages, so I think it worth adding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zakusha (talk • contribs) 15:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
Of course I understand this, however mykiev.info is the single site in External links section which presents full information about Kiev's history, landmarks, monuments, churches, famous kievans, museums, theatres, restaurants, fast-foods etc. There is no similar projects on the web.
Upcoming constructions
About the article, it would be nice to have a section devoted to upcoming constructions in the city. — Alex(T|C|E)05:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
On priorities again
Having waged a blatant propaganda war on Ukrainian pages, Muscovian editors are significantly damaging non-political, but top-important, pages in the first place. Like this one.
I mean we almost live at Soviet partisans, bloody Red Army and History of Сhristianity in Ukraine conducting edit wars there for years. But just take look at city and oblast pages!!! A "Federal city"?! "The city istelf designated as its own raion"? Kyiv Oblast ODA Chief is chairing the Oblast Council? The Mayor is "traditionally appointed" as KMDA chief? While me and my friends are busy with propagandists, important pages are being gradually destroyed by good-intended amateurs!
Normal users have no other choice, but to mobilize ourselves, split our attempts and start reanimating/developing geo articles like Kiev. Of course keeping eye on existing edit wars as well.AlexPU20:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought I was clearly addressing normal users, not concentrated on Muscovian propaganda and intrigues. I.e., not you Irpen.AlexPU11:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Easy, easy... Propoganda doesn't stick around long, just don't forcefully remove it. :-) Also, be nice to other Wikipedians. I doubt anybody is here to spread propoganda, and every article is a compromise between many people's points of view, which helps make it neutral. — Alex(T|C|E)03:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
On priorities. "Transport" section has grown too large. I think it needs a separate main article (with updated info on how many new tram lines Lyonia the Cosmos is going to launch :)). AlexkHristov, thanks for your peaceful message. The other Alex is being dangerously straightforward and emotional here :(. As for propaganda, it's flourishing here just like he says :((((. Cheers, Ukrained20:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. AlexPU, why don't you go and take care of that Kyiv Oblast mistake? As a "father" of all UA-subdivisions info here? Ukrained20:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Now I don't think it is necessarily that long.. If it could be expanded some more, including like you said Kiev tram info and bridges of Kiev, then perhaps it could be spun off the main article.. Lets go ahead and try it... —dima/s-ko/21:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Correct format
Introduction:
History
major historical events that occurred in city
Law and government
Mayor or City Executive-- current, previous executives
There are lots of problems with implementing the proposed format and there is no need for all city articles to be alike. Different articles may be good each in their own way. --Irpen22:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Cuisine section
Is it just me or this section is odd? It is strange, fringe and unwikified. It also carries the tl:expand which places this not so bad article in a whole lot of uncalled for categories. --Irpen22:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Cuisine
{{Expand-section|date=April 2007}} <!-- This section is criticizing local cuisine (but strangely never directly discusses Ukrainian/Slavic food) and cites no sources; it is completely subjective in nature. It doesn't even make any real assertions for that matter... The second statement in particular sounds like it came out of an episode of "$40 a Day." The comparison made is ambiguous... I don't know anything about the local cuisine of Kiev but I do know that this wasn't writing about it.-->
Kiev is also a great place for the food lovers, and not only those who have been fond of Ukrainian cuisine. An increasing number of international travelers, as well as the interest with which the Ukrainian city dwellers approach, have spurred a steady growth of bars and diners ranging from Japanese sushi-bars to traditional Italian and Spanish restaurants.
While there is about as much contrast between these in terms of quality of food served as there is between the social classes in Ukraine, the majority of eateries tend to be overpriced, however featuring polite and thorough services.
I'm not sure we even need a cuisine section. Other then food in Kiev being much more expensive for foreigners there's really nothing speicial about it (or at least nothing different from the food in other Ukrainian cities). Thanks, Bogdan11:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Add external resource?
Hey, we published a new webguide for kiev on kiev.com. We added a lot of sights, hotels, restaurants, hotels and so on. We also created a metro guide. Maybe this is an mentionable entry for the weblinks part. I guess it would help a lot of tourists. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.203.6.144 (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Please add ISO 3166-2 geocode in template after coordinates
In the middle ages the city was mentioned in published sources as Kiou, Kiow, Kiew, Kiovia. On one of the oldest English maps of the region Russiae, Moscoviae et Tartariae published by Ortelius (London, 1570) the city is spelled as Kiou. On the map by Guillaume de Beauplan (1650) the name of the city was given as Kiiow, and the region was named as Kÿowia. In English traveller Joseph Marshall's book Travels (London, 1772) the city is referred as Kiovia.
The pictured map and its title appear to be in Latin, not English. In what language were the other mentioned maps written? This should be clarified. Obviously, these would have been used as sources in the English-speaking world, but the current text implies that they were written in English, and that doesn't appear to be completely true. —MichaelZ. 2007-08-05 21:07 Z
Well, on the detail of Russiae, Moscoviae et Tartariae Descriptio it says "Publisher: Abraham Ortelius (London, 1570)", but on the full map page I see "Auctore Antonio Jenkensono Anglo edita Londini anno 1562... Publisher: Abraham Ortelius, Antwerp, (1570) 1592", so something's mixed up. On the actual scan, I see something like "Auctore Antonio Ienkensono Anglo, edita Londini anno 1562 & dedicata istriss: D. Henrico Sÿdneo Wallis presidi."
But regardless, the map must have been aimed at an international market, because its titles and legends are exclusively in the Latin language: Lituania, Borysthenes fl., Mare Caspium, Crimea. Obviously this could have influenced the English language, but it is not in English.
I wonder what language was used for Beauplan's and the other maps mentioned. —MichaelZ. 2007-08-05 21:31 Z
Well, there is no doubt about the second (1804) map that it is English. As for the earlier times, were there other than Latin maps common at all? If not, the Latin maps were the only ones used by the Anglophone travellers similar to any others. --Irpen21:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
No, nothing is really mixed up here: as our article on Abraham Ortelius expressly says, his atlas also gives sources. The version you have there is obviously in Latin. There were later versions in Dutch, French and German. These versions were slightly different. E.g. the French version was the first atlas to give the correct shape of Southern America. Kiovia may be an Ortelian translation of English (and primarily Polish) Kiov. Kÿowia looks like a Dutch spelling. FWIW, that Dutch diphthong, now usually spelled "ij" (both letters being capitalized at the beginning of a sentence or a place name, so Iceland is IJsland and not Ijsland) is pronounced like English "ay". BTW, I am sure that Ortelius's atlas was more influential in shaping British geography mores than the English source he was using. --Pan Gerwazy10:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
While the Culture section, as well as some other sections could benefit from expanded content, I would not say that it is in pitiful shape. However, I would be happy to take a look at your suggestions in time, and if I don't have too many problems navigating the rather arcane editing protocols of WP, offer my suggestions. How will consensus be determined with regards to your hoped for edits? - --Volodia Tatlin16:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Unprotecting?
Can the page be completely unprotected as long as the page move privileges are kept fully protected, so to avoid any gung-ho renaming? The article has been protected for quite some time, I think. --Asteriontalk23:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Horlo has sort of promised not to make any edits related to changing Kiev to Kyiv. Actually he promised not to make any edits at all until the name was changed, and it does not look that is going to happen anytime soon. The current RM will be open until September 21, 2007, and it has been requested not to revisit for six months after that. 199.125.109.3504:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Good article candidate
OK, dear friends, now it's time to get back to the article's improvement. This is a very good article and the WP:FA status is within a reasonable reach. So, I nominated it for WP:GA. Please help improving it when reviewers leave constructive suggestions. --Irpen03:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The article is nice, but it should contain more inline references (preferably to secondary rather than tertiary sources) and should be checked for peacock terms. Besides, it is not comprehensive. The economy section doesn't make much sense and is effectively about industry. Economy is not based exclusively on industry. The section leaves many important questions unanswered (How much taxes are collected in Kiev? Where are they allocated?). The government section should ideally provide references to legislation (as the article Legal status and local government of Kiev does). The article lacks sections on crime, media, utilities (Where tap water is taken from?). As the article is likely to be expanded further, it is worth creating separate more specific articles for some large subsections (e.g. on transportation). Good luck. BTW, is the Eurovision succesion box really that important and necessary? Colchicum15:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't seem quite right, because the very first 352-page OED fascicle (A to Ant) was published in 1884. Does this actually mean "The Oxford English Dictionary cited Kiev in a quotation dated 1883"? Can someone quote the quotation? —MichaelZ. 2007-09-16 05:38 Z
The OED 2nd has an entry for "Kievan, a. Also Kievian" but not Kiev. The first cited mention is in 1927 ("Kievian political power"), 1957 ("Kievan Russia"), 1959 ("Kievan State"), and 1965 ("Kievan period").
I may be able to check the additions and the online OED. —MichaelZ. 2007-10-12 16:08 Z
I had a look a the three OED Additions (1993 and 1997), and the up-to-date full OED Online. The main entry for "Kievan" has not been revised yet (Third Edition has been working on letters M–P), and there is no addition of "Kiev".
However, Oxford's Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names has an entry for Kiev, but unfortunately it only briefly outlines the Slavic etymology, and not usage in English. The headword is in typical British form, with English and BGN/PCGN transliteration of the Ukrainian name: "Kiev (Kyyiv)".
The Canadian Oxford Dictionary does appear to have more toponyms, including a headword for "Kiev /'ki:ef/ (Ukrainian Kyiv /'ki:ɪf/)", but unfortunately no quotations. —MichaelZ. 2007-10-15 23:09 Z
Kiev in American Encyclopaedia, 1874
Re, OED, we need to dig out the long history who and when added this or hit the library. Despite a PD, this dictionary does not seem to be online.
I just found another old source: The American Cyclopædia, Appleton, NY, 1874 LCCN07-19446Google books link has an entry on Kiev. Perhaps worthy to add a citation. Also, the article is interesting both as a source on the city and of the time. I take a liberty to paste it in full here:
KIEV, II. A city, capital of the government, on the right bank of the Dnieper, 270 m. N. of Odessa; pop. in 1867, 70,591. It consists of four parts, the old town, the Petcherskoi or new fort, both on steep hills, the Podol or low town, between the hills and the river, and the Vladimir town, which was added to the former by the empress Catharine II.
The old town, which in the times preceding the conversion of the Russians to Christianity, under Vladimir the Great, was the principal seat of Sarmatian and Russian heathen worship, now contains, besides several other churches, the cathedral of St. Sophia, a magnificent structure of the llth century, and the palace of the Greek metropolitan. The fort contains the great Petcherskoi monastery from which it received its name, and which, together with the bastions and walls of the place, and the glittering gilt and colored cupolas of the churches on the neighboring eminences, makes a strong impression upon the traveller who approaches the city from the other side of the Dnieper.. This division embraces the barracks of the garrison, the arsenals and magazines, the houses of the officers, the palace of the governor, numerous churches, and the renowned catacombs of St. Anthony, consisting of exc avations in a precipitous cliff on the banks of the river, which attract numberless pilgrims from all parts of Russia through veneration for the saints whose bodies are there preserved. Adjoining are the catacombs of St. Theodosius, which contain a smaller number of saints. The Podol, which is the commercial part of the city, is regularly laid out, and embellished with gardens.
Kiev has a large university, founded in 1834, to which are attached a library and cabinets of medals, zoology, mineralogy, and botany. There are also various other institutions of learning, of which the Greek theological academy in the Petcherskoi monastery is the best endowed and most frequented.
The manufactures and trade of the city are not important. Railways connect it with Moscow and St. Petersburg, Odessa, and Lemberg. A magnificent bridge, recently constructed, spans the Dnieper.
The earliest history of Kiev is traced by some to the time of the Greek colonies near the N. coast of the Black sea ; others place its foundation in the 5th century. In the last quarter of the 9th century it became the residence of the princes of Novgorod. As the cap ital of Christianized Russia, it was adorned in the llth century with a great number of churches. After the middle of the 12th, however, it was deprived of its rank, and subsequently suffered by the devastations of the Tartars, the Lithuanian and Polish wars, the plague, and fires. After having been for about three centuries in the hands of the Poles, it was reannexed to Russia by the peace of 1667.
I hope this longish quote of PD text pasted to a talk page is not too annoying. Feel free to remove if it is. Just save the diff then. Cheers, --Irpen09:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
On 19 April 1996, an official Ukrainian-English transliteration system was adopted by the Ukrainian Legal Terminology Commission (Decision N 9).
Use of the approved system is not mandatory for the transliteration of foreign names into Ukrainian.
Transliteration should be made directly between Ukrainian and English without the use of any intermediary languages.
Decision 9 9, in accordance with the Legal Terminology Commission s express authority, is binding only for the transliteration of Ukrainian names in English in legislative and official acts.
For brevity's sake, the system routinely allows for names such as the city of 'Zaporizhzhia' to be given as 'Zaporizhia,' 'L'viv' as 'Lviv,' etc. Also included is a short list of official spellings for miscellaneous terms: 'Ukraine' (no use of the article 'the'), 'Crimea' (as opposed to 'Krym'), 'Black Sea,' and 'Sea of Azov'. *In certain cases, 'traditional' forms may be shown in parentheses after the official form: 'Dnipro (Dnieper).'
In addition, apostrophe marks and softening marks may be omitted upon transliteration into English.
Ukrainian letter English letter Note Example
А А - Алушта - Alushta
Б B - Борщагівка - Borschahivka
В V - Вишгород - Vyshhorod
Г H, gh Н-in most cases, gh - when recreating the combination “зг” Гадяч - Hadiach;Згорани - Zghorany
Ґ G - Ґалаґан - Galagan
Д D - Дон - Don
Е E - Рівне - Rivne
Є Ye, ie Ye - at the beginning of words, іе - in other positions Єнакієве - Yenakiieve;Наєнко - Naienko
Ж Zh - Житомир - Zhytomyr
З Z - Закарпаття - Zakarpattia
И Y - Медвин - Medvyn
I I - Iршава - Irshava
Ї I Yi - at the beginning of words, і - in other positions Їжакевич - Yizhakevych;Кадіївка - Kadiivka
Й Y, i Y - at the beginning of words, і - in other positions Йосипівка - Yosypivka;Стрий - Stryi
К K - Київ - Kyiv
Л L - Лебедин - Lebedyn
М M - Миколаїв - Mykolaiv
Н N - Ніжин - Nizhin
О O - Одеса - Odesa
П P - Полтава - Poltava
Р R - Ромни - Romny
С S - Суми - Sumy
Т T - Тетерів - Teteriv
У U - Ужгород - Uzhhorod
Ф F - Фастів - Fastiv
Х Kh - Харків - Kharkiv
Ц Ts - Біла Церква - Bila Tserkva
Ч Ch - Чернівці - Chernivtsi
Ш Sh - Шостка - Shostka
Щ Sch - Гоща -Hoscha
Ь ‘ (see commentary) Русь - Rus’; Львів - L’viv
Ю Yu, iu Yu - at the beginning of words, iu - in other positions Юрій - Yurii;Крюківка - Krukivka
Я Ya, ia Ya - at the beginning of words, іа - in other positions Яготин - Yahotyn;Iчня - Ichnia
‘ (apostrophe) “ (see commentary) Знам’янка - Znamianka
There is another quote from the Constitution of Ukraine[2]. In Chapter I, Article 20 clearly states what the capital of Ukraine is. Are we going to diregard that?
Article 20
The state symbols of Ukraine are the State Flag of Ukraine, the State Coat of Arms of Ukraine and the State Anthem of Ukraine.
The State Flag of Ukraine is a banner of two equally-sized horizontal bands of blue and yellow.
The Great State Coat of Arms of Ukraine shall be established with the consideration of the Small State Coat of Arms of Ukraine and the Coat of Arms of the Zaporozhian Host, by the law adopted by no less than two-thirds of the constitutional compositio n of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
The main element of the Great State Coat of Arms of Ukraine is the Emblem of the Royal State of Volodymyr the Great (the Small State Coat of Arms of Ukraine).
The State Anthem of Ukraine is the national anthem set to the music of M. Verbytskyi, with words that are confirmed by the law adopted by no less than two-thirds of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
The description of the state symbols of Ukraine and the procedure for their use shall be established by the law adopted by no less than two-thirds of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
The capital of Ukraine is the City of Kyiv.
Here is the official postal address at the US embassy [3]. Please, pay attention to name of the link and the postal address. Here is the British embassy web-site in Ukraine [4]. Here is resolution of the Ukrainian commission for legal terminology No. 5, protocol no.1 of October 14, 1995 [5].
УКРАЇНСЬКОЇ КОМІСІЇ З ПИТАНЬ ПРАВНИЧОЇ ТЕРМІНОЛОГІЇ
No.9
Протокол No.2 від 19 квітня 1996 р.
Комісія, розглянувши на підставі п. 6 ч,4 Положення про Українську комісію з питань правничої термінології питання щодо затвердження таблиці для відтворення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови та правил до неї, спираючись на подання Інституту української мови НАН України, УХВАЛИЛА:
1. Затвердити як нормативну таблицю для відтворення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови та правила до неї (додається).
2. На підставі п. 7 Положення про Українську комісію з питань правничої термінології встановити, що нормативна таблиця застосовується при відторенні українських власних назв засобами англійської мови у законодавчих та офіційних актах.
3. Визначити, що роз'яснення щодо особливостей застосування таблиці та висновки щодо правильності її застосування надає Інститут українсчкої мови НАН України (за його згодою), із погодженням, у раці необхідності, з Комісією.
Голова Комісії, Міністр юстиції України
С. ГОЛОВАТИЙ
Відповідальний секретар Комісії
Ю. ЗАЙЦЕВ
Додаток до рішення No.9
української комісії з питань правничої термінології
протокол No.2 від 19 квітня 1996 р.
Нормативна таблиця для відтворення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови
No. Укр. Літери Лат. Літери Примітки Приклади застосування
1 А A - Алушта Alushta
2 Б B - Борщагівка Borschahivka
3 В V - Вишгород Vyshhorod
4 Г H , gh Н - у більшості випадків Гадяч,
Згорани Hadiach,
Zghorany
5 Ґ G - Ґалаґан Galagan
6 Д D - Дон Don
7 Е E - Рівне Rivne
8 Є Ye , ie Ye - на початку слова,
ie - в інших позиціях Єнакієве,
Наєнко Yenakiieve,
Naienko
9 Ж Zh - Житомир Zhytomyr
10 З Z - Закарпаття Zakarpattia
11 И Y - Медвин Medvyn
12 І I - Іршава Irshava
13 Ї I Yi - на початку слова,
I - в інших позиціях Їжакевич,
Кадіївка Yizhakevych,
Kadiivka
14 Й Y , i Y - на початку слова,
i - в інших позиціях Йосипівка,
Стрий Yosypivka,
Stryi
15 К K - Київ Kyiv
16 Л L - Лебедин Lebedyn
17 М M - Миколаїв Mykolaiv
18 Н N - Ніжин Nizhyn
19 О O - Одеса Odesa
20 П P - Полтава Poltava
21 Р R - Ромни Romny
22 С S - Суми Sumy
23 Т T - Тетерів Teteriv
24 У U - Ужгород Uzhhorod
25 Ф F - Фастів Fastiv
26 Х Kh - Харків Kharkiv
27 Ц Ts - Біла Церква Bila Tserkva
28 Ч Ch - Чернівці Chernivtsi
29 Ш Sh - Шостка Shostka
30 Щ Sch - Гоща Hoscha
31 Ь ' - Русь,
Львів Rus',
L'viv
32 Ю Yu , iu Yu - на початку слова,
iu - в інших позиціях Юрій,
Крюківка Yurii,
Kriukivka
33 Я Ya , ia Ya - на початку слова,
ia - в інших позиціях Яготин,
Ічня Yahotyn,
Ichnia
34 ' ia - Знам'янка Znamianka
Правила відтворення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови
1. Вітворення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови відбуваєтчся з їх української форми, записаної відповідно до чинного правопису, без посередництва будь-якої іншої мови.
2. Відтоврення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови відбувається шляхом транслітерації (політерного перезапису за допомогою латинського алфавіту). Міжмовні алфавітні відповідники подано в нормативаній таблиці, коментар до якої наведено нижче.
3. Вимоги цих правл не обов'язкові для запису українських імен іноземних громадян.
Коментар до нормативної таблиці: У певних сферах відтворення українських власних назв вживається спрощений варіант запису, що передбачає:
а) орфографічне спрощення громіздкого подвоення приголосних ж, х, ц, ч, ш, які відтворюються буквосполученнями zh, kh, ts, ch, sh, наприклад, Запоріжжя -- Zaporizhia,
б) апостроф і знак м'якшення (за винятком буквосполучень -ьо-, -ьї-, що завжди передаються як -'o, 'i-) у спрощеній транслітерації не відтворюються.
Приклади:
Українська форма: Спрощення транслітерація: Точна транслітерація:
Львів Lviv L'viv
Ананьїв Ananiv Anan'iv
Стеф'юк Stefiuk Stef’iuk
Koрoп’є Koropie Korop’ie
Голова Комісії, Міністр юстиції України
С. ГОЛОВАТИЙ
Відповідальний секретар комісії
Ю.ЗАЙЦЕВ
РОЗ'ЯСНЕННЯ
щодо особливостей застосування нормативної таблиці для відтворення українських власних назв засобами англійської мови
1. Звичайно застосовується спрощена транслітерація. Точна транслітерація вживається тільки в окремих випадках і за погодженням з Українською комісією з питань правничої термінології та Інститутом української мови НАН Україин.
2. Зберігають традиційне написання такі власні назви:
Ukraine (вживається без артикля the)
Crimea
Black Sea
Sea of Azov
3. В окремих випадках і за умов, коли це не суперечить правилам оформлення відповідного документа, транслітерована власна назва може дублюватися у дужках традиційним написанням, наприклад: Dnipro (Dnieper)
Голова Української Комісії
з питань правничої термінології
С. ГОЛОВАТИЙ
Директор Інституту української мови НАН України
О. ТАРАНЕНКО
Запити та пропозиції щодо інших особливостей застосування нормативної таблиці направляти у письмовому вигляді до Української комісії з питань правличої термінології (252033, Київ, вул. Саксаганського, 41) та до Інституту Української мови НАН України (252001, Київ, МСН, вул. Грушевського, 4).
You know, there are laws that suggest the spelling of the words. Is that crazy? None the less, people still keep on searching for stuff that certaintly will not be there due to strict censorship in times of the Soviet government. No one calls Ukraine Ukrainian SSR any longer or some other crazy names that they have for it in 1874. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
GA Review
The article is a good, solid B-class article, but does not currently meet the Good Article criteria, and will not be listed at this time.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:
Most obviously, the article is largely insufficiently referenced. There are large sections of the article with zero sources, and many more with only one. **Everything** doesn't **have** to be cited for GA criteria, but at a minimum, the article should provide inline citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons.
The reference citation list is also not formatted properly. Citations should include full citation information (e.g. author, title, publisher, date of publication, and date of retrieval if a web link is available). This is so that, if a web link should become unavailable (404 not found), readers can still verify the source through other means and the reference is not totally useless. I would recommend taking a look at WP:CITE for information on how to use inline citations in articles.
The article prose can be choppy at times, and somewhat difficult to read. Minor words, like "the", or commas, are often missing. A good copyedit would be recommended. It would help to review the manual of style as well.
The lead could use some work. It's not bad, but the third paragraph seems to go on and on about the history, and isn't very short and concise. Some of this material could go into the history section, and only the major facts should be included. The lead section should contain a good, clear, and concise summary of the article, and should almost be able to stand on its own without the rest of the article, if the reader chooses to only read the lead. It would help to review WP:LEAD for tips on improving this section. Oh, and the image in the infobox is copyrighted; I believe the copyright tag is good, but it doesn't have a fair-use rationale. I don't really understand what, "Should be PD as 'news' by UA law, but fairuse for now." means? Nice image, though! ;-)
I would recommend a better organization of sections, at least for the beginning. After the lead, start with 'etymology' (move the contents of 'city name evolution' to 'etymology', since that's what it is). Then, put history, followed by geography (rename 'environment' to 'geography', and eliminate the first unnecessary subsection header there), then 'demographics', and then 'economy'. I'd put 'culture' after that, followed by 'sports' (move sports to its own main section, as it can stand on its own outside of culture), and then 'government', 'education', and 'transportation' at the end.
You might want to add some details on the cityscape (streets & neighborhoods) to the geography section.
What about talking about some of the local politics and the interactions of the mayor and city council with the citizens. BTW, who's the mayor? While it's generally unnecessary to list the entire members of the city council, if it's very large, some of the key officers are generally important. Maybe also include some information on national legislative representatives, too.
The demographics section looks good, and reasonably well referenced (although the ethnic group figures are unsourced). I also would find it interesting to have an explanation for the huge drop in population around WWII and its subsequent rise back to over a million in the decade that followed?
I would eliminate the 'modern kiev' title and simply call this 'culture'. The language really should be cleaned up, and there are no sources. Watch for weasel words and flowery language in the culture section. Things like, "hip nightclubs, classy restaurants and prestigious hotels". While it's still written in prose, a lot of the information on cultural attractions is really just a list in disguise, and more information could be added to spruce this up a bit. Also, what about including some information about any annual cultural events or fairs in the city? Don't forget to include sources and references for information in this section, either.
The 'tourism' section should probably be merged partially with the culture section, and partially with economy, if tourism is a significant aspect of the economy. Remember, wikipedia is not a tourist guide, and text should focus on the encyclopedic nature of information.
There's a couple of 'see also' links in several sections that link to categories, and not individual articles. This is generally discouraged and these 'see also' links should ideally go to a separately linked article. For example, if the culture section has a lot of info, link to See also: Culture in Kiev.
There are two galleries of images (culture and tourism) that really don't seem to contribute much to the article in its position, as they're just images. I would recommend taking the best images and using them within the text of the article, to help talk about various cultural attractions. If there are a lot of images, any that aren't used in the text could be added to a 'gallery' section at the end of the article, but before the 'see also' and 'references' sections.
Since there's not really that many external links, it probably isn't necessary to separate them into subsections. Also, any links that are used as inline citations, need not be linked at the bottom under 'external links', since they'll fall under 'references' instead. Review WP:EL for tips on including external links in sections and keeping the amount of linkspam down.
Hope this review helps to improve the article up to GA status. Please renominate it once the issues are addressed. Cheers! Dr. Cash05:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Spelling error
Can a registered user please correct the spelling of the word "similar" in the reference for the spelling Kyjevъ? Due to the semi-protected status of this article, unregistered users like myself can't make trivial edits such as this.
Thanks, 60.242.0.24512:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that whole part of the reference has been removed. Just to check - the similarity mentioned in the older reference was between the spelling in the Chronicle compared to modern Ukrainian, as opposed to Russian, wasn't it? Or was it about the Latin transliterations of each spelling?
60.242.0.245 (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
What, and be accused of having a Single-Purpose Account when I make my first edit? ;) Though I've noted a few other spelling errors in the article, so I may do so soon..Have you an opinion on the recently truncated reference?60.242.0.245 (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for the above larrikinism. This IP address has an editing history, from edits by myself and others under the same IP; I continue to use it for this reason. No Horlos reside here though, Bogdan. I've twice been mistaken for Horlo, but he lives in Canada.
The Kyjevъ reference has been changed[7] (other than just having the spelling fixed), on the grounds of the relative similarity between spelling being dubious. I was wondering if Къıєвъ was being compared to Київ and Киев, or if the transliterations (Kyiev, Kyiv and Kiev) were being compared. Could Alex Kov, Reginmund, Ceriy or anybody else explain this please?
I think it would be better if we left the Architectural gallery and removed the "Views of Kiev" one. As architecture is it's own section while "Views of Kiev" are mere images, without much importance to the article. Regards, Bogdanщо?21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses...Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages.
First, you need to show that the Russian name in Cyrillic alphabet is relevant (either because this Cyrillic name is used by at least 10% of English sources, or that the place was used to be inhabited by Russians). Second, read the policy completely: "Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section". --Greggerr (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that the Russian name is relevant, as is the Polish name, given the influence from those two countries on the recent (last few hundred years) history of the city. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen, the section looks amusingly absurdous for me. Kiev, as with most settlements in Ukraine, is supplied with electricity by the national grid (like it was redundantly stated in the section). To the best of my humble knowledge, the "grid" means that no particular power station is relevant more than the others. Not to mention the "power supply in the form of natural gas, piped from..." :) Thus, the whole section is probably an original research.
On the other hand, we may want to describe the energy industry in the city. Which would lead us to a pretty different picture: in fact there are several power stations inside Kiev, owned by the city community and even foreign investors. Even that stinky trash-burning company is a minor energy producer, hence the "Energiya" name :) So we might, or might not, reflect all this in the main city article. Anyway, Economy of Kiev is the ultimate place for such information. I hope to get there some day. Thanks, Ukrained (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Economy
The whole "Economy" section of this article desperately needs expansion and updating rewriting within current size. I'm sure that significant number of "new" Kievans have never even heard of all those Soviet industrial giants :) But they must be very fond of booming construction industry, PFTS stock exchange, or at least Troyeschyna bazar :) Ukrained (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The line "In the Ukrainian language itself, the name of the city was pronounced Kiev until only about 100 years ago." does not match the source (http://www.infoukes.com/faq/kyiv-2/), where the author states "The spelling Kyiv (Kyyiv) has been used in Ukrainian for only about the last century".
This is a statement about the English spelling, not pronunciation. BTW, I do not discuss it the (original) sentence makes any sense whatsoever or the author is an expert enough to be quoted about the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.254.93.99 (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a statement about the Cyrillic spelling, unless our anon is claiming that Ukrainian used the Latin alphabet in 1900. I don't see where English comes into it; we never have used Cyrillic. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Septentrionalis, I think you are actually agreeing with this editor, as he or she was saying that the source was interpreted incorrectly. As you are registered (and the article is semi-protected), do you want to have a close look and see if the statement with source (http://www.infoukes.com/faq/kyiv-2/) should be modified or cut, as it has nothing to do with pronunciation?60.242.0.245 (talk) 07:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The primary name of the article is very important, as it is the first thing a reader sees. However, the rest of the article needs to be looked after too: grammatical issues that can be found at Talk:Kyiv#Architectural_monuments were raised by myself seventeen days ago, and have not been corrected by any of the registered users - neither the 'regulars', nor those who added their voices to this talk page once the rename was requested. Also, if one reads Talk:Kyiv#incorrect_atribution, they will come across another error which is yet to be corrected. Can a registered user please look into this?
First, why should the section about the general education of the city be illustrated by the image of just one educational institution, especially, since we in Kiev are lucky to have a very notable historic building that connects to the city's education in general? This architectural masterpiece, constructed specifically as a Pedagogical Museum has a lot of exciting things connected with it. After being constructed as a Pedagogical Museum, the building was a stage of several hugely important political events (I will write an article on its history one day) and now it again is devoted to the education purposes being the city's Teachers' House. Additionally (but note that this is not the sole reason), the two university pics have problems. --Irpen20:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Kyiv Shevchenko University is the leading University not only in Kyiv, but in Ukraine. Kyiv Mohyla Academy is the oldest, and in historical prospective, one of the most influential. On the other hand, the connection of the Pedagogical Museum to education is minor, and the building is the most known not as Pedagogical Museum, but due to political reasons as Tsentralna Rada building (and one day there will be an article written about that building). --Greggerr (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am glad you are familiar with this building's history. Also, note, that it was built as a Pedagogical Museum and is now again a city's Teacher's House.
I propose a straw poll photo is better for the city education section as long as it is too short to accommodate more than one image.
IMO, the museum's photo is better as it is more historic and more interesting, shows an architectural masterpiece, a historical significant building to refer to in other section of the article, and a professional work. --Irpen06:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you understand that the photo you brought in is controversial and offensive to Ukrainians? How many in the Russian Empire were getting education in their native language? What was the "prosveschenie" about? That Ukrainians are "Russian people". But we are not. We have got our language, and were close to get a country in 1917-20. I'm assuming your good fate, but I know you are smart not to notice the underlying meaning of the photo you brought in.
You know that your postcard is no way the best illustration for the 'Education' section. The building is of marginal importance for education. City articles are about city characteristics, not just history. There is a section on history, and your Podol photo is acceptable for this. But except the history section, the rest of the article covers modern characteristics. Black and white 100 year old photo is not a representation of modern education. It's an interesting photo, and it is a must in the article about the building in pair with the current photo, but pushing it into Kiev is too far.
The straw poll? Will it be "Russian people" vs. Eastern Europeans? You are here the one who is pushing a controversial photo. Probably in this particular issue you need to step back. --Greggerr (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't pretend that you speak for all Ukrainians when you say that photo is "controversial and offensive to Ukrainians", this is outright nonsense. The narrow nationalist slice of the tolerant Ukrainian nation should not usurp the right to speak for the entire people. Ukrainians are not offended at all, except of a small part who make up this non-existing "offense" just to push the change they like to see.--Miyokan (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You pretend to know the general attitude of people in Kiev? Based on what? On what you are shown on your Russian TV? From year to year the tolerant Ukrainian nation becames increasingly intolerant, given the imperialistic attitude of the narrow nationalist slice which is usurping the Russian society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggerr (talk • contribs)
Indeed, Greggerr, please cut the nonsense? Who is becoming intolerant? What offensive? To who Ukrainians? Who are "we"? You? Me? DDima? Please do not speak on behalf of "the Ukrainians". And don't do the rest of us a disservice portraying us intolerant. I don't know about Miyokan, but I do have the knowledge about the general attitude of people in Kiev. And it is not anywhere close to a fringe view your are trying to assign to Kievans. You claim that you "speak for Ukrainians" is no more valid than that of Yanukovych or even Vitrenko.
Further, this is not the article about the Ukrainian education. This is the section about the education in Kiev. "Controversial photo" is your invention. Probably in this particular issue you are best to stay on topic and don't tell me what to do. I am asking for opinions and arguments. What's wrong with asking for feedback? You are the one here trying to turn this into an ethnic match. I am interested in opinion of other editors, preferably devoid of ethnic talk of any kind. If this discussion brings in the bunch of the usual following crowd, it would be unfortunate, but it is easy to see whose opinion here is most informed and valuable. There were very few editors who made more than 20 edits to this article overall and still remain active. Those editors are DDima, Mzajac, Kuban, Bogdan, Ukrained, you (if edits from all your accounts are added up) and myself. If this discussion instead gets hijacked by outsiders, it would be less valuable. --Irpen09:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Irpen, you seem to dislike the growing support of Tyahnybok's Svoboda. But you are bringing a photo of Red Army march in Lviv. You are bringing a photo with the monarchist statement. What do you expect in response? There is a number of photos which you find controversial and offensive.
If if I were to represent a minority, what does it really change? Are you advocating for a respect of a minority or advocating for ignoring it? There are different minorities in Ukraine. --Greggerr (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
For Tyahnybok, I don't even pay attention to how much support he gets. It can never become large enough to matter to me precisely because the majority of Ukrainians always rejected and I daresay will reject the ultra-nationalist rhetoric. If you want to know what political developments in Ukraine I dislike we can have this fascinating discussion elsewhere but please do not put things in my mouth.
BAck to the image, I am not sure about the monarchist statement. If you check the sources on the building in question, it was built on the charitable contributions of prominent Kievans. The museum was international and multicultural, just like Kiev was and remained through its history.
For the Red Army in Lviv pic, you could have asked in another article, but I would satisfy your curiosity. The 1939 unification of Ukraine (for the first time ever) was an event of the epochal significance in its history. Many historians agree on that and I think such an event deserves the image. What image is best, we could discuss. You chose, instead, to sneakily nominate it for deletion. From my past experience with you this was unsurprising. Now you are trying a different trick, to claim the image's being offensive out of thin air. You tried to pull that card in the discussion of the hero city template and many other times.
If this museum was indeed offensive to Kievans, I am sure it was said somewhere. This could certainly be a valid argument but not if it comes from a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor. Some find the very name of the city "offensive" and some may even consider the Latin characters "offensive". Now, please keep this discussion on topic.
Thank you for bringing in the third image. Now, let's let others provide their opinions. I am particularly interested in the opinions of editors who spend much effort to build this article but of course anyone's opinion may be helpful. --Irpen11:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
About your statement of the 1939 "unification" and whatever historians you have mentioned. I know for the fact that people of the western part of Ukraine perceive this act in diffrent perspective. And that is not a minority. Recently on Inter (Ukrainian TV station) there was a movie about two Ukrainian that were fighting Germans, one from Kharkiv, another from Lviv. It truly reflects the opinion of the Ukrainian population in that regard. I apologize that I cannot recall the name of the movie at this time. Coincidently this "unification" happened at the start of the World War II and can also be perceived as the initiation of the last as some of the other annexations that took place at that time: Finland, Bukovina, Baltic states etc. I wonder why no one addresses that issue. And what is up with the law that Russia has passed to outlaw justification of it war crimes. Are we to believe that the Soviet Union was all that pure? Well, just a food for thought... Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Vote #3
I'm going for the "anyone's opinion" category:
When considering both the current and historic significance of the buildings, as well as the suitability and aesthetics of their pictures, the Mohyla Academy seems to win out. A possible problem is that it could be seen as non-representative, due to its relatively low number of enrollments (it's now an 'exclusive' centre of learning). The pedagogical museum is quite interesting architecturally, but lacks current significance relative to the others. Kyiv University is of course very relevant, though a scaled-down photo of that building may not be the best choice for the article (it looks quite monochromatic, especially in a small image).
Just a question: What does Khotyn Fortress has to do with Kiev? Why is that in the article? It is in totaly different part of Ukraine!
what is the point of having the russian name if there is a link to the name in other languages article (which russian is in)? Ostap20:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I assume you mean in the introduction? The Ukrainian name is also shown, and it is also in the other languages article. I would assume it is because Russian and Ukrainian are the main languages of Kyiv/Kiev, and it is common to give the name of a city in its native/most widely-spoken languages (as well as English) in the introduction of an article. Regards, EJF (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, no - it is common to show what the average English speaker would find least surprising. Just do a google search for "capital of Ukraine", ignore all of the invitations to find a mate, and you will see that Kyiv is more common. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I see that the last hours we had 3 different pictures of Kyiv in the infobox. Somehowe I think the current picture of Besarabsky Market is not the best way to represent Kyiv... Should we have some sort of vote on this? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with a photo of Maidan Nezalezhnosti. In modern Ukraine, it is the most recognizable image of modern Kyiv and, because of the Orange Revolution, calls to mind a major "national moment". The monument to Independence is especially recognizable as being "Kyiv". A distant second would be a photo of St Michael's. But both photos have rhetorical value--a photo of St Michael's is a look back at the city's past, a photo of Maidan Nezalezhnosti is a look forward at the city's present and future. (Taivo (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
I see that New York City and London and other city articles use montages-pictures in the infobox. Mabey that is a good idea for this Kiev article. It could stop the neverending chances of pictures (of latley). I have no idea why the current picure is seen as more typical Kiev then a picture of Maidan. I hope it is not some anti-Orange Revolution statment, I was in favour of a Maidan picture cause it is known most in English speaking country's (I do believe).
Personally, no. The photo should be Maidan, preferrably with the Independence Monument in view. That is the image of modern Kyiv that is most "Ukrainian" right now. (Taivo (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC))
The city's present is better presented throughout the modern skyline of Kyiv; or then we need simply a montage ... any objection ? FesCityRaver (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't like montages and the skyline photo, especially at night, just makes it look like every other city (not even European necessarily). I still prefer the Maidan photo because that is a very distinctive image of Kyiv. But I'm open for a discussion. --Taivo (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the typical Ukrainian square is a great representation, but the skyline shows the city as whole, this is only my opinion FesCityRaver (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
As with all big cities, unless there is a truly distinctive building that most recognize (such as the former World Trade Center towers in New York, or the Sears Tower in Chicago, etc.), every skyline is indistinguishable from every other skyline. Plazas with distinctive monuments are often much more iconographic than a skyline. For example, Paris is more recognizable from the Eiffel Tower than from its skyline, which is unremarkable. Kyiv's skyline is unremarkable--there are no skyscrapers and the church domes are generally obscured by multistory buildings in the immediate vicinity. There are really only two things that make Kyiv unique--the Maidan and its monument spire, and the Iron Maiden. The Iron Maiden, however, is so tied to the Soviet Union that it is probably an inappropriate choice. --Taivo (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The Maidan photo, is a nice photo and is recognisable, in the same way that Big Ben and Nelson's Column are recognisable for London. My 1st preference would be to keep the Maidan photo.
If for some reason this is impossible - then let us have a photo of something else that is unique to Kiev - the Babi Yar memorial to to massacre of the Jews.
I do not like montages. Using them makes no sense on something like Wikipedia, because if you want to show 5 images on a Wikipedia page, you just show the all five images. You do not need to create a montage.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)!
Sir Taivo is right (with regards) what a soviet stub have to do with Ukraine ? (we cant take this point so, because even Russia orginated from the first Ukrainian state) i think the best representation of Kiev will be shown under the Varangian brothers ... the Legendary founders of Kyiv (with respect), otherwise people, there is no other notable tall monument within the city left by Cimmerians, Sarmatians or Slavs ... discussion is going onboard ? regards
It's not a question of any old monument, but a question of a recognizable monument. I have to disagree with Toddy about the Babi Yar memorial. It is a worthy memorial, but it is not a recognizable feature of Kyiv. With the Orange Revolution, Maidan and the monument to Freedom became internationally noteworthy and recognizable. --Taivo (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Then, I think about one of those famous Ukrainian cathedrals of Kyiv, which are a UNESCO World Heritage site (a skyline of the city with those will be great) Regards!
St Peter's Cathedral in Rome is famous; St Paul's Cathedral in London is famous. If you ask English people to name a famous cathedral in Kiev, they would have to ask Google or guess.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
The Pechersky Lavra is not as old as St Sophia's (which is also a UNESCO site and in the heart of the city). But I think that something in the heart of the city is more appropriate than something on the outskirts. I have a hard time thinking of an image of Kiev more iconographic than Maidan. What is your objection to Maidan? --Taivo (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Seriously None, but i think one these following pictures will be great:
It is just something more ancient, and more venerated by the people of Ukraine.
A Skyline of the city with the most recognizable monument, the St.-Sophia
The square with the statue of Bohdan Khmelnytsky
The English version of Wikipedia isn't for the people of Ukraine, it's for English speakers (there is a Ukrainian Wikipedia for the people of Ukraine). The photos are nice, and you are welcome to add them at appropriate places in the article, but the most recognizable image to the Americans and Brits (primarily) who will be the users of this encyclopedia, the image of Maidan is more iconic and recently recognizable. As Americans, we like to see photos of things that don't look like everything else. That skyline looks like any other skyline and the statue is just another statue of a guy on a horse--we have a thousand of them in our cities. But a tall spire topped by a golden statue is pretty cool. And any American looking up Kiev in the first place probably knows about the Orange Revolution. Like I said, these two photos you've offered can be placed elsewhere in the article. --Taivo (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
There is not only Americans who are interested in Ukraine, but also other people... and i didnt say its for Ukrainians, but i did say that those monuments are appreciated by Ukrainians, so its my supposition to say that its preferable that they represent the article, only my view, Regards. FesCityRaver (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I know we are not trying to hold a straw poll here, but if you ask me my vote would be for this shot of the Lavra. Although I agree it isnt as recognizable as the maidan to westerners, it certainly provides a better "summary" for Kiev as a highly religious city with much religious history. If you've ever been to Kiev the Lavra is positioned on the very picturesque hills overlooking the Dnieper and this view of the monastery dominates the left-bank of the city. Best regards, Tavrian20:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that the city is not best represented by religious iconography. I think it would be best to stick to a generalised view of the city. It may be more appropriate to have an image that captures recent and past points of interest. Maidan reminds me of the golden statue used in the U2 video. I am thinking that a montage may not be such a good thing either as past conversations have gone against that sort of thing, although there has been a general trend for them on other articles there have also been problems with people changing them for their own preferred montages (especially for ones from companies or flickr etc.) although having two or three together may be ok. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I thoroughly agree that the present photo is not a good representative of the city's skyline, although it's technically and artistically quite a nice photo. I have seen better views of the Kyiv skyline! The classic, of course, would be from the left bank on to the Lavra and the war museum, but that is a) pretty hackneyed by now and b) is being spoiled by the new developments beginning to poke up over the ridge (which should maybe have their own section - no one denies the city needs poffice space, but does it have to be so obtrusive?). Maybe a view from behind the museum in the Lavra looking over the monastery and on to the Dnipr, toward Levoberezhnoe? I'll see later if I have one! Maelli (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Since when Kyi, Schek, and Khoryv became Variags??? Who claims that? That is a bad example of a theory. The name of statue in Kyiv commemorates the Founders of the City, not Variags. Why are you putting a wrong name of the statue and reflecting false impressions? That is crazy! First of all the name of the statue has no relevance to Variags and second of all only a few historians relate Kyi, Schek, and Khoryv to that ethnicity stating that it could be false. So why won't simply put the real name of the statue instead of self-conscienciously renaming it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Project to achieve GA/FA?
A lot of energy has been spent discussing naming—I'd suggest instead that we put the proverbial stake in the ground and agree to work toward the necessary improvements in the article to achieve GA/FA. The easiest is to look around for other articles about cities which are rated GA or FA.
Perhaps we can reorder the sections—for example, do geography and climate really belong at top?—and then work from there. Also, if we do decide to communally apply ourselves I'd suggest archiving most of the talk here and leaving only the threads that apply to the original GA review. Kiev is more than deserving of our efforts here. While there's been progress, there's also been contentiousness—and we have not had a specific goal to work toward. I think the Johannesburg outline would do us well and help organize our efforts to address areas where the current article is deficient in content. Anyway, my thoughts having viewed Kiev over quite some time now. PētersVTALK18:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that there has been only one capital of Ukraine--Kyiv. That is, unless you count all the temporary towns where the twentieth century revolutionaries lived for a week or two. Ukraine as a country has only existed since 1991. The pre-Mongol "country" wasn't Ukraine, it was Kievan Rus, that is, the predecessor to all the East Slavic peoples, not to modern Ukraine. The Princes of Kiev merged into the Grand Dukes of Moscow. (Taivo (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC))
Even if some representative of Ukrainian aristocracy migrated to Moscow back those days, most of them stayed in Kyiv or place nearby in Ukraine. The word "Ukraine" dates back to as earlier as spring 1187. It is the well-known fact and not knowing it is a great ignorance of Ukrainian history. --- Wikipidys (talk) 7:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Baturyn was a capital for a bit longer then a week and it was not in the 20th century. Again, study the history. --- Wikipidys (talk) 7:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I found the proposed template thoroughly confusing - nothing is in date order - the references are to different entities - and it misses out the Zaporozhian Sich. The template is pushing a point of view on the history of this area - and this is deeply political and unbacked by citations. Wikipedia is meant to have a neutral point of view, and to have citations given for information, especially for controversial information
I looked at some of articles on towns in the template. Some have no citations whatsoever. It would be better effort were put into adding citations to these articles on supposed 'capitals of Ukraine'.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a brilliant idea!!! Excellent!! Well worth expanding. I will get to work on it immediately! Thank you for suggesting it. Horlo (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not think that Baturyn and especially Hlukhiv can really be classified as capitals. You might as well call Zhytomyr and Vinnytsia them as well. During the times of the Cossack Hetmanate maybe Chyhyryn can be categorized as a capital, but for most of the other times the real capital always stayed Kyiv. Kharkiv and Lviv can be put in that category. But all the other cities and towns just really cannot be considered. And Kharkiv was not a capital since 1917, but rather 1919 when the USRR was declared. In 1917 Kharkiv, technically was part of the Russian Republic according to the Intruktsiya of Kerensky, although was claimed by the Central Rada.Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Page 42-43 of the IPA Handbook clearly shows [w] and [j] as off-glides. There is no phonetic distinction between using [w] or the non-syllabic mark under a [u]. The non-syllabic mark is for use under a vowel symbol when there is no IPA symbol for the non-syllabic form, thus a non-syllabic mark is appropriate under an [e] because there is no IPA symbol for the non-syllabic version. With [u] and [i], however, there is [w] and [j], so the non-syllabic marking is not necessary. If you have an actual reference that says they are different, then please bring it forward. Otherwise, stop the edit warring. --Taivo (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Review
Specific evidence for using [w] as the IPA symbol for the syllable-final off-glide allophone of /v/ in Ukrainian by Ukrainian linguists:
Stefan M. Pugh & Ian Press, Ukrainian: A Comprehensive Grammar (Routledge, 1999). "At the beginning of a word before a consonant, in the middle of a word after a vowel before a consonant, and at the end of a word after a vowel the consonant [β/v] is pronounced as a sound intermediate between [v] and [u]...At the end of a word we should not have [f] for this sound, though one cannot but admit that it is heard. In other words, [w] is prescribed" (pg. 27)
George Y. Shevelov, "Ukrainian," The Slavonic Languages (Routledge, 1993), pp. 947-998. "The consonant presented in table 17.2 as v/w is realized in syllable-final position as [w]" (pg. 951)
Ilko V. Korunets', Contrastive Typology of the English and Ukrainian Languages (Nova Knyha Publishers, 2004)
Evidence for using [u] with a non-syllabic diacritic as the IPA symbol for the syllable-final off-glide allophone of /v/ in Ukrainian by Ukrainian linguists:
George Y. Shevelov, An Outline of Modern Literary Ukrainian (Munich, 1951)
The page is becoming a bit too much like a gallery - lots of pictures all over theplace making the text difficult to read.
Do not forget that some people may read this on a small screen and to keep going left and right to follow the text would probably get frustrating.
I have tidied up some of the pics and removed some from the huge Architectural monuments section - two were repeat views and one was the exact same file from higher up the page.
If anyone is picky and decides they don't like all the images they could easily decide to delete a lot quoting "not a gallery" so I thought it best to adress the issues now :¬)
I gotta agree. It sounds like someone clipped this little bit out of a longer recording so it's not clear at all. --Taivo (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
History
Who wrote the history section? It's a complete raving. Starting from the truly fantastic «Hungarian rule», including that groundless «Khazarian outpost», and finishing with those strange words about «captured by Muscovites in 1230» something. That's a real gibberish, delirium.
"At least during the 8th and 9th centuries Kiev functioned as an outpost of the Khazar empire. A hill-fortress, called Sambat (Old Turkic for "High Place") was built to defend the area." - The Khazars didn't speak Old Turic, but a dialect of Oghuric, so that would be Sambatas and not Sambat.120.22.62.21 (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know who wrote the history section, but I have added some more info on the Hungarian rule. I think the whole article is fair, almost all opinions and views, theories are represented, however calling the ,,Hungarian rule" truly fantastic or identifying it as raving shows you should have a little bit make a deeper analysis on history. I can offer you Constantinos Phorphyrogenetos and some Arab sources, however it is debated where Lebedia and Etelköz were accurately, but it is sure by migrating to the Carpathian Basin they have incorporated the territory and city in question. The so-called ,,Khazar-outpost" are much more debated. (KIENGIR (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC))
The exact source is dr. Viktor Padányi: Dentu-Magyaria, p. 325, footnote 15. Futhermore, the word kő means stone, the non-Slavic origin is also supported by Vernadsky but he recognized it as a Khazar word meaning rock. However, the keő, keőv, keve forms are in written because the letter "ő" is very special and was mostly phonetically written in latin texts as "eve". The works of Constantinos Phorphyrogenetos and i.e. Ibn Kordadbeh are useful supports that Vernadsky's so-called Rus-Kaganate could not exist the place and time as he suggests. (KIENGIR (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC))
Babi Yar is part of the history of Kiev. The site is no longer just outside the city. Some of the ravines are now a park. There are also some memorials across the road from the park. Further on from the memorials are both communist and Christian cemeteries. I think Babi Yar should be mentioned in the article, and a photograph of the big memorial to the Jews murdered there should be in the article on Kiev.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Economy
What do you say if I prepare a table of historical economic data to complement Economy section that will look like this?
This is a good idea, except that the rows should be the columns, and the columns the rows. That would make it easier to accommodate data of different dates.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The use of bold is rather disturbing ! - perhaps like this ?
The main advantage is the the numbers are on the same line as they are in the table making it much more easy to read when in edit mode Chaosdruid (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Significance of statements on The Economist's Facebook page
Facebook chat is not a reliable source
A chat on Facebook is not a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia. The posters on Facebook can claim to be anybody, but there is no control whatsoever on who they actually are. A mass murderer in Trenton, New Jersey can claim to be the CEO of The Economist and there is no way to tell otherwise. You cannot use a Facebook chat as a source for anything whatsoever, especially something as potentially contentious as the usage of Kiev or Kyiv. --Taivo (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Taivo, please stop misrepresenting my case. This has nothing to do with a Facebook "chat". It's a facebook Discussion on an official page for the Economist. There is nothing in Wikipedia guidelines stating that no information from Facebook whatsoever can be used. This is very interesting inside information and deserves to be heard. An official company page on Facebook is a reliable source.
No, it is not since there is no way to verify that persons posting in a Facebook chat are who they say they are. Wikipedia works on verifiability and verifiability on Facebook is virtually ZERO. --Taivo (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Taivo, please stop misrepresenting my case. This has nothing to do with a Facebook "chat". It's a facebook Discussion on an official page for the Economist. There is nothing in Wikipedia guidelines stating that no information from Facebook whatsoever can be used. This is very interesting inside information and deserves to be heard. These are my arguments:
This is an official The Economist page.
It is not a chat. It is a discussion taking place on an official The Economist page.
Since it is the official The Economist page, it would be highly unlikely for anyone to claim to be the CEO of the said group if they are not.
Pretty much all major organizations have established official pages on Facebook, which they use to communicate with the public.
It's highly unlikely someone is ever going to publish an official article on internal debates in a news organization in regards to a spelling of a city name, so this source is as good as it is going to get.
Facebook reliability is zero and Facebook verifiability is virtually zero, no matter what page you are pointing at. There is also no way to know whether a page is "official" or not. Anyone can post anything on Facebook without any checks or balances. Facebook is not a reliable source. Before posting your comment in the article you need to build a consensus for adding it. You have gained no consensus at this point. If you continue to violate WP:BRD, then I will report you for edit warring. --Taivo (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Facebook is not a reliable source. Find something from the official website or the paper or the source does not pass muster. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Significance
One editor has recently pushed in the section on History of the Name in English to include a Facebook quote from a single newspaper where there has been some internal debate over whether to switch to Kyiv. Is this really significant encyclopedic content? Does it violate WP:UNDUE? I'd like to hear other opinions and not just Sanya3's. --Taivo (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
It is indeed interesting. This is from No.10 [8], but may not represent the official government view on which spelling they are using, or are going to use. I would like to do some more research on the matter. Obviously until such time as there is a near equal use of both spellings then we have to keep to the standard line - most used. On that point the problem will be "use" and "used" - if the current use is Kyiv, there will be many more historical references to Kiev.
The next problem is the US usage. As European countries are closer to Ukraine and involvement in European matters, there is less likelihood for the US to change to Kyiv.
I think that if the British Government starts to use it, and it appears in notable periodicals Times, NY TImes, etc then we can safely change to Kyiv. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Chaosdruid, the question here is not whether to use "Kiev" or "Kyiv" in the article as a whole, but whether a single mention of The Economist's editor having an internal debate on a Facebook page over the matter is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Does the sentence, "The Economist is having an internal debate", warrant being here? --Taivo (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand that, as my comment in the section above says - also I have included the No.10 comment to show that it seems the tide is indeed turning. The thing is that you titled the section "significance" and the significance is that the debate is getting to the stage where we may soon have to follow the outline of what I stated above.
Undue is a policy to ensure avoidance of WP:FRINGE - in itself not that applicable as the naming is over Kyiv and Kiev. It is more a matter of WP:WEIGHT.
The source, a blog, is not notable. It remains to be seen whether the significance of the debate is that the UK finally starts to use Kyiv over Kiev, something we both know has gone on for a long time on here also. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I worry that the quotation in the footnote is too big. I had to expand it a bit because I felt that the original was being cherry-picked to show only the editor's POV. The decision by the magazine was to use Kiev not Kyiv because Kiev is the standard English word, and Kyiv is not. But then the original editor expanded it further to include the part that of course the matter will be reconsidered in the future. Of course everything is reconsidered sooner or later. Perhaps another editor should look at the source and consider whether to trim the quotation down. My feeling is that the key fact is that the magazine had an internal debate on which spelling to use, and made the decision to continue using Kiev because that is the English spelling for the city's name.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
By the way the Economist is a weekly magazine not a newspaper. (Though I have seen web-sources that claim it is a "newspaper".) It is claimed that 7 years ago it had a circulation of over 900,000 (source [9]).
But should this comment about The Economist be in the article at all? It is one single, solitary newspaper/magazine. There is no decision being reported, just internal discussion. It is reported in a chat on Facebook. None of these points to any value in terms of the Wikipedia article on the city of Kiev. It's a tiny, trivial nonevent in relation to anything else in the article. Can we have a consensus to delete it? While it is not WP:FRINGE in the sense that it is not being pushed by a wacko, reporting it gives it undue weight as something significant in the history of the city. --Taivo (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I said before, as per my comment above in the section dealing with the quote ^^^ up there, it doesn't pass muster so it has to go. The only place that should be used is on the discussion page for naming. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Toddy1, I know that you tried to edit the comment to make it more neutral, but do you agree with me and Chaosdruid that it is simply not important enough to include here? --Taivo (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Some of the statements above are not true.
If you have physically seen the Sunday Times and the Economist you will understand that one is a newspaper and the other is a magazine. They are both weekly. If you read the articles in them, you will see that the nature of the articles is consistent with their format. One has newspaper articles concerned with what happened yesterday, the other has articles about things of longer duration, which is what you would expect in a magazine.
The quotation was from a letter posted on Facebook. To call it chat is not really appropriate.
"There is no decision being reported" - that is not true - the letter reports that they had had an internal discussion and decided to continue using "Kiev" because "Kiev" is the standard English word and using Kyiv would confuse their readers.
The letter wasn't a "letter", but a comment posted on a forum page. That is "chat"--where one person posts a question or comment and another person responds. That's the context in which the CEO's comment was posted--it was in response to other comments and posts. Yes, Toddy1, a decision to make no change could still be considered to be a decision, but he wasn't reporting a decision made as a result of the comments on the forum page, but a past action the last time they updated their style guide. But it's still just pushing around grains of sand on the beach. I don't think the comment belongs here because it is one newspaper/magazine/whatever in a big sea of media publications that made no decision to move past the status quo based on a comment on a forum page on Facebook. It was given undue weight and doesn't belong here. --Taivo (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
We got into this because an editor posted an addition, and I asked for him to back it up with a citation. If we are going to delete this, please could we also delete the statements about the professional appeasers of the US State Department and the UK Foreign Office trying to appease the Kiev regime by abandoning the standard English spellings of names of places in Ukraine in favour of transliterations from the Ukrainian language.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
While the mention of Monopoly from three years ago is also a violation of WP:UNDUE, I don't think the government usages are on the same (low) level as individual media outlets. Official government usage does have more importance. While it has no effect on Wikipedia's naming policy, it can have more long-term effects than what spelling The Economist uses. --Taivo (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Киïв and Kyiv
Just a comment. Probably, the wider international acceptance of the transliterated name form ‘Kyiv’ is slowed by certain drawbacks in the present official Ukrainian system for the Romanization of Ukrainian itself. Indeed, that system seeks compatibility with English sound-letter correspondences, and the primary purpose of any such system would be to ensure a plausible phonemic approximation of Ukrainian words by English speaking users, including those having no knowledge of the Ukrainian language and no available additional explanations. However, without such explanations one can hardly guess the system’s somewhat complicated graphemic correspondences И → Y; І → I; Ї → Yi (initial positions) and I (other positions); Й → Y (initial positions) and I (other positions). More appropriate in this case might be the correspondences И → I; І → I; Ї → Yi; Й → Y, according to which ‘Киïв’ would be transliterated as ‘Kiyiv’, and reasonably adequately read by English speaking users too. Anyway, the official Ukrainian system is as it is – for now. Apcbg (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The problems are how different English speaking areas pronounce the spellings compared to Ukrainians.
Kyiv - Kayiv, Kii-iv are really only possible.
Kiyiv - Ki-yiv, Kee-yiv, Kay-yiv, etc.
Personally I think that a Ukrainian pronouncing it on the page would be much better (assuming it is not some strange dialect of Ukrainian! lol) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, that system seeks compatibility with English sound-letter correspondences, and the primary purpose of any such system would be to ensure a plausible phonemic approximation of Ukrainian words by English speaking users
Yeah, sure. And China's request to switch to Bejing was also a huge sign of insecurity. What are you smoking? It's a sign of self-assertion.--Sanya3 (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Chaosdruid, you say that ‘Kiyiv’ would be possibly pronounced “Ki-yiv, Kee-yiv, Kay-yiv”. Well I doubt if ‘Kay-yiv’ is actually likely; while English speakers do pronounce ‘i’ as [ai] in many English words and certain positions, they generally do not do so in the case of Roman-lettered continental language words. The remaining possibilities ‘Ki-yiv’ and ‘Kee-yiv’ are actually very similar, and the difference (if discerned at all) is well within the limits of differences between the regional varieties of English. Therefore, both ‘Ki-yiv’ and ‘Kee-yiv’ would be okay.
As for the alleged possible pronunciation of ‘Kyiv’ as ‘Kii-iv’, this is based on no ‘ky’ – [i:] English spelling pattern for non word-final ‘y’. Apcbg (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
You may not know many Texans, Mississippians or Aussies then :¬) Also Kyalami is pronounced Kai-a-laami here, the pronunciation is was aiming at by Kii was as in the i in phi (like pi π the mathematical 3.14159265). Perhaps the Kai I am using now is easier to understand. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
But then, if of the two pronunciations you consider “only possible” for ‘Kyiv’, namely ‘Kayiv’ and ‘Kii-iv’, the second one is actually [kai-iv] ([ai] as in the English pronunciation of the Greek π), then both those pronunciations would seem far from the desirable one which I suppose to be IPA [kijiv]. Apcbg (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
No because these are the possible mispronunciations I am listing after the -. A correctly pronounced Kyiv would be kjɪv using diaphonemes, well as far as my phonetics goes anyway. IPA is a bit beyond me lol :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC) (I had to change the capital I in that as it keeps putting it in non-serif, looks like an l) Chaosdruid (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you that a correctly pronounced ‘Kyiv’ would be [kjɪv]. Unfortunately, that's not the desired [kɪjɪv]. Apcbg (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
And unfortunately all we have to go by is the (presumably Ukrainian?) editor who gave us the little soundbite [ˈkɪjiw]Audio file "Kyiv.ogg" not found on the page. I did ask a long time ago for someone to redo it as it is very hard to tell the first iterations of speech. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I have listened to that soundbite, and its quality is less than adequate indeed; sounds to me as [kijw] or something like that. Apcbg (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The pronunciation used by locals in Ukrainian for Київ is pretty much as an English person would pronounce Kiev, except there is a greater emphasis on the "ev". As always the dead hand of the state screws up - no English person would ever guess the correct pronunciation from "Kyiv" - but they can and do get it almost perfect with "Kiev".--Toddy1 (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Please note that the citation number 70 which refers to the BBC usage of "Kiev" in an article dated from 2006 should be updated and the wording changed. BBC now recognizes the new spelling of "Kyiv" in their article dated from 2010/04/26 (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8645126.stm) Near the end of the article, it states "... in a park in Kiev (now spelled Kyiv)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddoncov (talk • contribs) 22:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The article in question is talking about lack of wisdom in the current British Foreign Office, and gives as examples: stupid ideas being generated and circulated as a result of brainstorming, the use of the word stakeholder, and that the British Foreign Office now spells Kiev, Kyiv. Far from supporting your case for Kiev being now spelled Kyiv, the article ever so tactfully does the opposite.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Please post what it is that you'd like to change, then repost the edit request template. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page or put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk page and someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you misunderstood Yulia Romero, or maybe I have misunderstood you.
UTC is Wikipediaese for Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).
Holland is at GMT+1 in Winter and GMT+2 in Summer. Many countries in the EU share this time zone.
England is at GMT in Winter and GMT+1 in Summer. England is also in the EU.
Romania and Latvia are at GMT+2 in Winter and GMT+3 in Summer. Both these countries are also in the EU.
Until September 2011, Ukraine was at GMT+2 in Winter and GMT+3 in Summer. But from September 2011 until the politicians next change their minds, Ukraine will be at GMT+3 all year round.
Incidentally, I loved the advert for looking 10-15 years younger in the Kyiv Post. No doubt you have to be as rich as Mrs Timoshenko to afford it.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2011
Oops forgot it is summer time now.... I wonder how long "this timescale" will last though. It looks like an anti-EU integration measure from a Parliament who says it supports EU integration.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!15:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I am a PhD student at Carnegie Mellon University researching ways to improve a reader’s understanding of Wikipedia history by putting it in context. I recently completed a prototype tool called ‘Pivot’ that brings edit history to the sentence level rather than line-by-line, edit-by-edit as the current interface does. As I continue development, I’d really like some feedback from active Wikipedians as to what works, what doesn’t, and how it might be used. Since one of the articles I've pre-processed is this one, I was wondering if any regulars would be willing to give it a quick look and give me some comments.
To use the prototype, you can visit this external links that layers the tool on top of the article: Kiev article tool
When you load the page, on the right hand side you’ll see four colored bars that match up with the scroll bar. These become more saturated if sentences in the region of the page have more edits (red), more contributors (yellow), a greater percentage of reverts (green), or were edited more recently (blue). Clicking on those bars will highlight the text, darkening sentences that have more edits, etc. so you can identify interesting areas to explore. Once you’ve picked out an interesting sentence, click on it to open up the history for that sentence. A new frame will pull open (some scrolling may be required thanks to a pernicious bug, sorry). In that frame you can see the most recent edit at the top of the list, and then previous edits going down into the past, along with editor names and comments. Words that have been added in an edit are highlighted in green. In turn, you can highlight the sentences that a contributor has made edits to in that window.
Would you be willing to give me some comments either through my talk page or an anonymous survey? I’m particularly interested in whether you think the tool helped you uncover the sorts of information I mentioned earlier, if you see any use for it in your daily editing tasks, and what you think could be improved. Are there particular situations that this tool would really help you out?
If you know of any other Wikipedians who might also be willing to help, I'd appreciate you linking them in. You can find out more about me on my user page and personal home page. I'm more than happy to talk more about this research on my talk page or by email, and thank you for your time. JeffRz (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Kyiv. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
b (MoS): 
b (focused): 
I started. Be bold! It's very difficult for 
! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 14:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
