Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places)

Centralization re: decommunization of names

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith @Mzajac @Ymblanter I think these discussions should be more centralized and visible to the broader community. It's a stretch to claim precedent when there is no real wide participation. Even the Talk:Kadiivka RM from "Stakhanov" had relatively few participants compared to celebrated discussions like Gdansk/Danzig, (London)Derry, or even KyivNotKiev etc etc so

As for invocations of WP:UAPLACE, it took a very close perusal to see where the purported legalistic basis to support name changes lies. Rather than attempts at back-alley WikiHermeneutics, the common-sense approach is to seek wider consensus, and potentially an RfC, about what guidelines, if any, there should be regarding decommunized names in "temporarily occupied" areas.

Also, to be absolutely clear, WP:UAPLACE is not a policy or a guideline, but merely an information page.

Anyway, pinging @Slatersteven and @Cinderella157 as they have extensive track records of consensus-building, mediation, and stuff, with complementary and differing cognitive/methodological approaches to complex issues.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The thing is that we just had a common RM and it failed miserably. The conclusion was to renominate the localities separately, and this is what is happening now. What I am really disappointed with is that they are now being nominated one by one using exactly the same arguments, as if nothing was discussed before. Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Though it would be great to have more participants of course. Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

As the RM's are closed, I am unsure that it expected. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

No, there are about a dozen which are open. Ymblanter (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that some of them have actually been moved, and my arguments were completely ignored (not even reflected in the closure statements). Fine, I guess the best I can do it to move to a different topic area. This one became completely polluted by POV editors. Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hm, a quick search identified at least these 3 recent closures by 2 different editors:

• Talk:Piatypillia#Requested move 6 November 2023
• Talk:Sofiivka, Horlivka Raion, Donetsk Oblast#Requested move 4 November 2023
• Talk:Buran, Ukraine#Requested move 4 November 2023

Like in maybe 80% of all closures, both sides’ arguments were “ignored,” because closer only wrote the result: “moved.”

The exception has a closing summary written by a 3rd closer. In this case, Ymblanter commented objecting to the application of UAPLACE (but didn’t actually write “oppose”), and the summary referred to only COMMONNAME and not the fallback convention UAPLACE – perhaps it didn’t need to be considered for the decision at all.

• Talk:Lypske#Requested move 5 November 2023

IMO, Ymblanter’s complaint appears to be unfounded, given these RMs. If I missed any that tell a different story, please let us know.

Using negative labelling “polluted by POV editors” by a minority-POV editor, along with its implications, is unhelpful.  —Michael Z. 18:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for creating this discussion. I'm not very experienced at all with these kinds of large-scale RfCs (which is why I hadn’t created one myself) so I probably wont be participating in this that much, but this should be very useful. Regardless, I won’t create any more RMs on this topic until this discussion reaches consensus. HappyWith (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

we can't centralize RM's as each page will have unique issues. Each RM must be assessed on its own merits.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I recall being told quite recently that there is a broad consensus on these names.

Anyway, the recent RMs have passed based on consensus, guidelines including WP:WIAN, WP:PLACENAME, and WP:MODERNPLACENAME, and evidence from reliable sources. UAPLACE has not replaced them: in fact the RMs have reinforced the usefulness of UAPLACE as a predictor of consensus on place names in Ukraine (consensus-making will naturally decide whether these RMs are a precedent or not).

Counterarguments have been you can only rename something you control, which is just a rephrasing of “use Moscow’s name and not Kyiv’s (because might makes right)” – but either side of that argument is moot, because WP:OFFICIALNAME: naming is a broader agreement out of the control of either Bankova or the Kremlin. Article titling comes from the use of names in RS and editors’ consensus.

Blaming UAPLACE is a distraction. Core guidelines and consensus are handling these RMs perfectly adequately. A bunch of obscure villages under Moscow’s occupation are not likely to become a “celebrated” discussion that editors flock to.

But go ahead and challenge the closed RMs on procedural grounds and widely publicize the ones in progress. Whatever determines a broader consensus and satisfies the complaints is positive. If RS show changed usage next year, you’re welcome to file RMs to change back (as some vowed to do after the celebrated Kyiv RM).

Still want to file an RFC? Suit yourself. There’s no deadline.  —Michael Z. 17:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've been trying to get my head around the issue. I can see the multi-move at Talk:Kirovske, Donetsk Oblast#Requested move 25 October 2023 and an earlier discussion at the same page. There are multiple moves by HappyWith such as this move at Talk:Sverdlove#Requested move 12 November 2023. The proposition is to adopt the official Ukrainian name changed from a former name ca 2016. Per WP:MODERNPLACENAME, Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage. The circumstances are that these localities have little to no mention in English language sources since 2016 for either name based on Google searches or similar. However, WP:WIAN would have us consult a range of sources including gazetteers and geographical databases. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines would tell us when there is no English common name, the modern official name ... should be used. At multiple places, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) qualifies official name as local official name. Herein lies the nub of the issue when these places have not been controlled by Ukraine since before Ukraine proclaimed the changes of names and whether the Ukrainian government official name is the local official name. We could argue the legalities of official in respect to de jure v de facto but the adage is that possession is nine-tenths of the law. WP deals with such issues at arms length. We follow, we do not lead. Adopting the Ukrainian government name can be seen as endorsing the Ukrainian government and bolsterism for the Ukrainian cause. No matter what our personal opinions are, we should take every care to not only be apartisan but appear to be apartisan. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Have the gazetteers and like listed at WP:WIAN changed? If not, then we certainly should not. Until there is a clear good reason to change these names, we should be guided by there is WP:NODEADLINE. Because of the inherent POV issues relating to these article names, it probably is something to be resolved by RfC and broader community scrutiny regarding applying the local official name.

There are some other issues I see regarding WP:UAPLACE. This would be the tendency to quite long article titles when there may be no actual requirement (no real article title conflict) for a long but precise title. There is also an issue of capitalisation of terms for levels of political divisions (eg Luhansk Oblast) when such capitalisation of oblast is not supported by sources (see here). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the very good summary. I’ll add:

• In the case of recent moves in this category, although small in number, there had been recent sources named in WIAN which supported the move.
• RGW can cut either way: don’t take the title to mean that a position that may be morally correct cannot also be the one mandated by the guidelines. Editors’ ideas of right and wrong vary. IMO insisting that occupied status (that has nothing to do with guidelines) should determine the title, while the actual evidence, policies, and consensus should not, is textbook RGW if it is based on supposed “rightness.”

 —Michael Z. 15:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your statement about UAPLACE causing a tendency towards unnecessarily long article names, though I don't think that's actually in the infopage - it's just a standard editors have seemingly drifted towards over the years. Ex: if the name of a hromada is unique, I don't see why we have to list the name of the raion and oblast after it every time. This could theoretically get even more comically long-winded if there happen to be two settlements with the same name in the same hromada. HappyWith (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm guilty of this. I do agree there's actually not that much sense for it, still I think it is nice that Ukrainian localities use consistent names. This does require some discussion. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to explain my main argument here the way I see it: I think that when there is no WP:COMMONNAME, we should choose the name given to the settlement by the Ukrainian government.

This is because, while I think it's true that the DPR and LPR have refused to accept the changed names, there are not actually any WP:RS that I know of that cover this fact - it's only their own press releases. Some of these settlements are so obscure that I had to search really hard to even find references confirming that they were occupied. There aren't any RS - or even less-than reliable sources that I know of - where it says something like "The local separatist authorities still refer to Boikivske as Telmanove", for instance. Even since the start of the full-scale invasion in Feb 22, these settlements are so far behind the frontline that they've gotten no coverage from RS that mentions the Russian government names for them, etc. It's essentially original research to say that the de facto authorities, or the locals in the settlements, still use the communist names, even though it's probably true.

Another argument I've made before is that Wikipedia should follow the coverage style of RS. RS have recently shifted to preferring to use modern Ukrainian names, like Odesa instead of Odessa, and Dnipro instead of Dnieper, etc - and so we should follow their example. I apologize that I can't link some policy to support this argument, but I assume that must be a policy even though I don't know the specific shorthand. International organizations and non-news sources seem to especially like using decommunized names, like the OSCE and the ISW. The OSCE's usage may be because it's illegal to use the old names (although, I'm not sure how true this is? The Mariupol mayoral advisor uses "Telmanove" in this article [1] ) but I don't know if that actually matters to us at WP. I think, even if it's because of censorship, we can still interpret a usage standard in well-respected sources.

I think it also somewhat matters that, from 2016 to 2022, the occupiers were unrecognized separatists. I think this sets the Donbas settlements slightly apart from the Crimean ones - even though Russia is also an illegal occupier there, it's at least a real country. The L/DPR were unrecognized by every country in the world, including Russia. I think that "endorsing the Ukrainian POV" isn't really POV in that case, given how international media and the United Nations were (and are) also overwhelmingly on that side of the issue.

Like Michael said, UAPLACE isn't really an issue here - I think my argument still makes sense even without citing it.

Sorry for how rambly this was, I hope it makes sense. Like I said, I'm not experienced with these kinds of large-scale discussions, but I wanted to try to explain my personal reasonings here. HappyWith (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I apologize that I can't link some policy to support this argument I think WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Official names are propagated through electronic databases: most states maintain their own central one, and the UN, the US GNIS, and others draw on those. UN agencies and international organizations are among the first consumers, because they work with states and have policies on respecting states’ self-identification, and have the technical framework to consume these databases. Online mapping draws on them too.

“it's illegal to use the old names” – dubious: can you cite this? (Every country has policies that specify official names of places, but that doesn’t criminalize calling things something else.)

The occupiers were not “unrecognized separatists.” It was an open secret that they were Russian-controlled proxies, and much of the press was really bad for both-sidesing their identity. The MH17 trial legally established that this was an international conflict because they were under the overall control of Russia from at least mid May 2014, and the ICC (if I recall correctly) established that there was no civil conflict at the same time, therefore Russia was responsible for all of their war crimes. They were Russia under international law. And the 2022 Russian invasion and “annexation” put the nail in the coffin. The press practically never refers to the so-called DLNR, mostly no longer refers to “pro-Russian separatists,” but to territory “occupied by Russia before February 2022.” Academic sources concur. The timelines were different, but Russia “recognized” the proxies that it set up and controlled in both Crimea and in the Donbas, and then it annexed (or “annexed”) them both, and wrote these territories of Ukraine into its own constitution. The only difference is that the DLNR nominally had militias: they were commanded by Russian officers from practically the beginning. The “People’s Militia of the Donetsk People’s Republic” was also the 1st Army Corps of the 8th Combined Arms Army of the Russian Armed Forces, and the PMLNR was the 2AC of the 8CAA.  —Michael Z. 02:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I‘ve heard Ymblanter say it’s illegal, but I’m not sure how true it is either. I think this comes from a misinterpretation of the law? I think it’s illegal to glorify or deny communist+fascist atrocities, not to call settlements by their old names. HappyWith (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've participated in several of these RMs. I don't see a point in this discussion. There should be no convention or general rule, as I see it geographic-specific rules overcomplicate editing in a topic area and thus hinder improvement. We have enough Wikipedia policies to suit each RM that is started. I incite HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith to keep starting RMs if they think there's a strong case for it, I myself have voted against some of them when I deemed it necessary, so it's not because I blindly support applying Ukrainian government names whenever possible. Though I do believe some of them should have had more research behind before the decision of starting them was made.

Regarding Cinderella157's comments I disagree that there is room for interpretation as to what the official names of Russian-occupied settlements in Ukraine are. In Wikipedia we use de jure maps, all of these localities use maps of Ukraine and their infoboxes and articles state they're part of Ukraine. I think "official" is inherently connected to the de jure situation, exceptions being for example Stepanakert (there's a RM anyway) which used the separatist name because most English-language sources do so; many (likely most) of the occupied Ukrainian localities do not have a common English name. I think any alternative to using de jure as a fixed standard is quite arbitrary and problematic, should we move articles any time one of the two sides makes territorial advances? Should we leave the original title under which the article was created? By what policy is this supported?

Personally I don't think any useful conclusion will come out of this discussion, this wave of RMs will eventually fade away and the articles in which consensus for moving was found will be moved and those in which consensus was not found for moving will not be moved. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

There are about 40 settlements that I have on my list of articles that still use the pre-decommunized name as their title, so it would be convenient to establish consensus on this issue so I don't have to RM each one, but I agree that it's unlikely we're going to reach consensus here. I think I'll start working on research to submit another medium-sized multimove to try and clear out the least-controversial ones. HappyWith (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• WP:NCPLACE would tell us: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. The premise of these moves is that there is no WP:COMMONNAME. WP:WIAN would list GNIS as one source to consult to determine the widely accepted name, it is one source. Google and Apple maps are not listed and from what I have seen, theses are often in conflict for the subject articles. Google Maps has a record of questionable naming and names can be changed by user submission without reasonable editorial oversight. At WP:RSP, there is no consensus that it is generally reliable. As I said before, where WP:NCPLACE would defer to the official name where there is no WP:COMMONNAME, it also refers to the local official name at several places. It would state in the lead: ... we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. Fairly explicitly, it is telling us to ignore such arguments such as this is the de jure official name that we ought to use. WP:WIAN would state: For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed [emphasis added]. Just as a revolution etc can lead to a name change, it can also prevent a name change being adopted when subsequently being imposed from without. This BBC News article would report that the Ukrainian government would eventually impose the name changes in Crimea but only upon return of Crimea to Ukraine. Is it perhaps wishful thinking that the government can impose such changes in DPR and LPR controlled areas now annexed by Russia? As I observed above, possession is nine-tenths of the law. HappyWith reported: ... while I think it's true that the DPR and LPR have refused to accept the changed names, there are not actually any WP:RS that I know of that cover this fact - it's only their own press releases. I suggest that these reports fall to WP:ABOUTSELF and are reliable for reporting that the names within their control are not changing. Considering the prevailing WP:P&G (including WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:NODEADLINE), we probably should not be changing such article titles for localities which have not been controlled by the Ukrainian government since it passed laws to change their names. There may be some exceptions that tend to WP:COMMONNAME English language usage but these would be exceptional in this context. I would observe that there are probably passionate views here as to how these localities ought to be named but this is all the more reason to poll the consensus of the broader community. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Should we make an RFC then? Seems like this discussion has only involved the same five people that keep voting in the RMs. HappyWith (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  WIAN does say “maps (such as those from the National Geographic Society), whether printed or electronic.” I have cited Google and Apple as having full coverage, being regularly updated, and widely used map sources. Could also consult Bing Maps (part of MS Windows), MapQuest, and others in Category:Web Map Services, but those I checked were sufficient to demonstrate that the changed names are being adopted by RS.  —Michael Z. 19:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  (Everyone, please stop referring to “DPR and LNR controlled areas.” These are occupied by Russia and have been de-facto controlled by Russia for a decade, and Russia gave up its pretences over a year ago. If we are concerned with avoiding what someone or other thinks ought to be, then please let’s use the neutral language of current, reliable sources. I am glad to provide sources if there is doubt.)  —Michael Z. 19:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  To be plain, assertions that the “local official name” is the one imposed from the Moscow Kremlin look like OR to me, and need more backing than invoking the names of the so-called “DLNR.”  —Michael Z. 20:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's also worth mentioning that "local official names" are in my view hard to identify in areas controlled by a state in which this happens [2] [3]. Few civilians in occupied Ukraine would dare to use the Ukrainian government names in the public space but that does not mean there is some widely accepted name among the populace like the syntagma "local official name" could imply. we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. this will also depend on the context. From an international and legal point of view Ukrainian government names are used, from a public point of view within the localities the old names are used, and from the popular and private point of view we can't reliably know. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Fairly explicitly, it is telling us to ignore such arguments such as this is the de jure official name that we ought to use. I believe this is Cinderella157's own personal interpretation of this vague set of words, above is my own interpretation. I think there's a margin for discussion and interpretation of these policies in the case of which a RfC may indeed be due. For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed here I'd argue the policy was not written having in mind current (as in currently developing) events. Proof of this could be calling the fall of the USSR "recent". Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The “local official name” argument is also illogical. The supposed local official names used by Russia are Russian, not Ukrainian, because Ukrainian language is de facto banned and certainly not officially used. Recent moves have included: Proletarske → Piatypillia (where the “local official name” would be Russian Proletarskoye), Karlo-Marksove → Sofiivka, Horlivka Raion, Donetsk Oblast (Russian Karlo-Marksovo), and Enhelsove → Buran, Ukraine (Russian Engelsovo). The entreaty to respect local official names is not something even its proponents have been proposing or considering.  —Michael Z. 21:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I have listed some of the affected pages that I am aware of for which move requests have been made. Might others add to this list. We might also add other potentially affected localities. These would be localities for which the Ukrainian government legislated name changes in 2016, for which there are Wiki articles and which have not been controlled by the Ukrainian government since prior to the legislative change. These would also be localities in areas that were nominally controlled by the DPR/LPR, since the legislative changes are acknowledged to not affect Crimea. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• Talk:Kirovske, Donetsk Oblast#Requested move 25 October 2023 (multi-page move) - not moved
• Talk:Piatypillia#Requested move 6 November 2023 - moved
• Talk:Sofiivka, Horlivka Raion, Donetsk Oblast#Requested move 4 November 2023 - moved
• Talk:Buran, Ukraine#Requested move 4 November 2023 - moved
• Talk:Lypske#Requested move 5 November 2023 - moved
• Talk:Kholodne, Donetsk Raion, Donetsk Oblast#Requested move 12 November 2023 (and Voikovskyi → Kopani, Donetsk Raion, Donetsk Oblast) - moved

In addition to those I mentioned above, the supposed “local official names” are Russian Sverdlovo not Ukrainian Sverdlove, Voikovskii not Voikovskyi, and Krasnyi Oktiabr, but some would have it spelled Krasnyy Oktyabr. —Michael Z. 06:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Months later, it seems to me that there is a conflict between UAPLACE (an information-page essay) and NCPLACE (a guideline), so the former has to be clarified; that the UAPLACE "rule" hasn't been followed anyway; that the RM results are inconsistent, probably directly as a result of this conflict; and nothing's been done to resolve this. I would thus suggest that peeps most involved with this page propose a specific wording change to resolve the problem (or just do it WP:BOLDly and see if it sticks), leaning toward following WP:COMMONAME and NCCPLACE like everywhere else. This page should be saying how to apply the policy and the broader guideline to this specific-country context, not trying to defy them. After that and any other issues are resolved, this should be proposed at WP:VPPOL for promotion to {{Guideline}}. It really doesn't serve anyone's purposes to have this lingering around in an essay state. Either it's reparable and is advice that should be followed, or it is irreparable old junk that should be marked {{Historical}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Official Crimean Tatar names

I've been doing some cleanup on articles for raions of Crimea that have been officially renamed to their indigenous Crimean Tatar names (ex: Lenine Raion, Kirovske Raion, Krasnohvardiiske Raion), and I've run into a bit of a quandary. A lot of these articles have been edited to add their official Ukrainian names as alternative names, spelled according to the native Crimean Tatar orthography (eg: "Yedi Quyu Raion", "Qurman Raion"), but there isn't anything at UAPLACE that specifies this - going by what's here, we would instead call it "Yedy-Kuiu Raion", after the national transliteration of the Ukrainian name. That doesn't really seem right to me, though - it's going through two layers of clunky transliteration for a name that was originally in the Latin alphabet anyway. I don't know what spelling system English-language sources generally use for the alternative names of these mostly very obscure settlements and districts. This also all applies for the settlements themselves. Do any editors here have thoughts on what to do for these? HappyWith (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

As these are Ukrainian official place names, the official names are in both the state language, Ukrainian (spelled in Cyrillic), and the Indigenous language, Crimean Tatar (with a Latin Turkic alphabet in the process of being implemented). So both should appear under official and/or native name. Where the Ukrainian Cyrillic appears, it should be romanized as usual in parentheses. Remains to be seen which Latin-alphabet version will become most used in English sources, but there’s a good argument for the Turkic version because it is native to these names.

The linked articles look good at first glance.

Under Russian occupation the Cyrillic alphabet for Crimean Tatar is probably imposed, but the Crimean Tatar names are probably not allowed, so I don’t know what to do with that. Does anyone see a reason to include it too?  —Michael Z. 04:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we should use the Crimean Tatar latin when rather than a translit of uki (per WP:DONTUSEENGLISH) unless there is an established english spelling but i doubt there will be many cases of that.

Crimean Tatar names should always be included in latin simply because we're going to have to translit to it anyways when using the cyrillic. I don't really see a good reason to mandate inclusion or exclusion of Tatar cyrillic though—blindlynx 17:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Urban-type settlements

Urban-type settlements were abolished recently, being replaced by rural settlements (selyshches). It is to note that the councils of pre-2024 rural settlements are village councils while the councils of former urban-type settlements are settlement councils - meaning that if a rural settlement is a center of a hromada, the hromada could be either rural or settlement. See more info on Talk:Urban-type settlements in Ukraine. Shwabb1 (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Spelling of Kyiv / Kiev for events during the Ukrainian People's Republic / Ukrainian State

At the risk of opening a can of worms, do we consider it suitable to spell the name of the administrative centre of the Ukrainian People's Republic (1917–1921) and Ukrainian State (1918) as Kyiv? I've been writing a bit about the 1917–1921 period in Ukraine (see User:Nederlandse Leeuw/1918), and I'm not sure what to call it. I've seen some inconsistent spelling in other enwiki articles on the period as well, and I do not think it's a good idea to change everything unilaterally. So far, I've just pragmatically used "Kiev (modern Kyiv)" as a workaround for texts I've written myself, so as not to upset anyone.

I've got three arguments in favour of Kyiv:

1. The second rule of thumb of WP:KYIV, From 24 August 1991 (Ukrainian independence), Kyiv is likely to be appropriate, but proceed with caution., suggests that the name's spelling as "Kyiv is likely to be appropriate" in a time when Ukraine is an independent state;
2. the official UPR (Central Rada and Directorate) and Ukr State (Hetmanate) documents were (almost always) written in Ukrainian and usually issued with Київ (Kyiv) as the identified place of issuance / publication (see all pages in UkWikisource Категорія:Офіційні документи України 1917-1920); and
3. the fact that the Ukrainian People's Republic (UPR) enjoyed significant but not universal international recognition;

Therefore, would it be appropriate for us to spell the city's name as 'Kyiv' in reference to events in (part of) this 1917–1921 period? I think the answer is 'Yes', but I'd like some input before making changes, given the well-known controversies over the name's spelling, and because the post-24 August 1991 situation is not completely the same as the 1917–1921 situation(s).

However, there are some possible counter-arguments to be considered. The first rule of thumb of WP:KYIV probably does not apply to the 1917–1921 period, because unlike the October 1995 Resolution of the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology No. 5, or the 1996 Constitution of Ukraine Article 20 (which explicitly stipulates that Столицею України є місто Київ.; [The] capital of Ukraine [is the] city of Kyiv.), I have not been able to find such an explicit stipulation in official UPR, Central Rada, Directorate, Ukr State, Hetmanate etc. documents that Kyiv was to be considered the country's capital. E.g. uk:Київ#Українська революція states 20 листопада 1917 року вона III Універсалом проголосила Українську Народну Республіку, а Київ — її столицею. On 20 November 1917, it [the Central Rada] proclaimed [the] Ukrainian People's Republic by [the] Third Universal, and Kyiv [as] her capital., but the text does not mention 'Kyiv' except in У Киіві 7 листопаду (ноября) 1917 року. ([published] in Kyiv on 7 November (November) in [the] year 1917.)

Similarly, the Четвертий Універсал Української Центральної Ради (The Fourth Universal of the Ukrainian Central Rada) of 22 January 1918, which is the UPR's declaration of independence from Russia, makes no special mention of Kyiv, except as the place of publication: Київ, друкарня Р. К. Лубковського (Kyiv, R. K. Lubkovsky printing house). It seems that state officials at the time did not consider it important to explicitly define the capital; noting where a document was published seemed sufficient context to them to indicate where the state institutions of Ukraine were located / resided / operated. (This makes Ukraine no different from most former and current countries in the world; explicitly defining your capital or seat of government is a relatively modern phenomenon, rarely seen before 1900).

There might be a legal hiatus for the Ukrainian State (29 April – 14 December 1918), because it never received as much international recognition as the UPR, as it was essentially a German protectorate (established by the German-backed Hetman Coup in violation of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (Ukraine–Central Powers)). This may partially undermine the 3rd argument, even though most foreign states continued to recognise the UPR (Central Rada / Directorate).

The first time I see any stipulation in an official document of Ukraine in Ukrainian stipulating its capital is in, perhaps somewhat ironically, the 1937 Constitution of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Стаття 145. Столицею Української Радянської Соціалістичної Республіки є місто Київ.; Article 145. [The] capital of [the] Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic [is the] city of Kyiv. (Evidently, the 1996 Constitution article 20 is an amendment of this 1937 Constitution article 145, given the very similar phrasing). But obviously Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union at the time, and thus not an independent state, so neither rule of thumb seems to apply to Soviet Ukraine.

Therefore, only the second rule of thumb, the independence requirement, might apply to (part of) the 1917–1921 period. Similarly to the second rule of thumb, I think we should proceed with caution. If we do agree the spelling Kyiv is likely to be appropriate, then we should probably set the boundary from 22 January 1918 (declaration of independence by the Fourth Universal) until the Treaty of Riga of 18 March 1921, which legally and practically ended the UPR's existence (we don't have to count the Government of the Ukrainian People's Republic in exile).

I do not feel too strongly about this issue, and I hope we can keep this friendly and amicable. There's already a war on; we don't need another editwar over this as well, so let's see if we can come to a suitable agreement beforehand. If it's better to just keep it like "Kiev (modern Kyiv)" for now, that's also fine with me. NLeeuw (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That is an impressive amount of research for an issue you don't feel strongly about! The point of the 1991 date, as far as I'm aware, is not just there being "An independent Ukranian state" but specifically there being "The modern independent Ukranian state"; The same state that has mandated the English names of Ukrainian cities should be systematically transcribed from Ukranian rather than Russian. The Ukrainian People's Republic and Ukrainian State are unambigously historical topics, these states are over 100 years old(!) For unambiguously historical topics the consensus is to continue using "Kiev", and that consensus will remain until a new RfC supersedes it. (Hopefully soon; There are more than enough silly conventions on Wikipedia without having to call every major Ukranian city 2 different names depending on time period) Hecseur (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that this would just end up being more complicated than it's worth unfortunately. Especially given how messy the current use russian for historic system is.

That said google scholar suggests 'Kyivan' is roughly used as much as 'Keivan' in the last year or two [4] [5]

It's also worth noting that these discussions are never just about Kyiv and end up being applied to most Ukrainian cities —blindlynx 13:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If by "current system" you mean the moratorium on Kyiv usage, you're not alone. It just doesn't make sense.

Also nowhere here it is stated that we have moratorium on Odesa or Kharkiv usage but still somehow I am having troubles changing these cities' names to the proper Ukrainian spellings as well. This is just ridiculous. Kyiv citizen (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I could not agree more about the need to revisit the aforementioned RfC. I am a relatively new member of the community, and just noticed this particular thread. Hecseur please jump in the discussion thread right below this one if you feel like it. The current moratorium on pre-1991 Kyiv usage doesn't solve anything and just introduces more confusion and inconsistencies in articles. Kyiv citizen (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Historical contexts for other cases

From my read, the historical contexts rule of thumb was only specifically established for Kyiv/Kiev. However I'm assuming this would generally apply to other cases where the name has historically varied e.g. Odesa/Odessa. But has there been much discussion over this? What about on cases which have historically received a lot less attention e.g. Kharkiv or Luhansk? Nil Einne (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe the consensus is to use Ukrainian spellings for places in Ukraine as is the case with other countries e.g. Poland. Let's not reinvent a bicycle here. This is the official convention: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places) and it states The names of cities should be transliterated into Latin letters with the Ukrainian national system.

The only exception I could find is Chernobyl. Also Kyiv/Kiev is in this weird transitional phase at the moment with an arbitrary cut off year, and each change to Kyiv (even if it improves text readability and MOS:CONSISTENCY) hurts someone's feelings somehow, whereas changing to Kiev for the same reasons does not, which just feels weird and wrong.

Also as a side note. The names in question here never historically varied, they always remained the same: Odesa (but spelled Odessa using Russian naming convention), Kharkiv (but spelled Kharkov using Russian naming convention) and so on. And the convention is clearly Do not use transliterations derived from Russian names. Note I am not substituting Odesa with Khadzhibey (the original name of the settlement on the territory of modern days Odesa that got officially renamed) for example. There's big difference in a city's renaming which can be tied to a speicific date vs using consistent Ukrainian/Polish spellings which cannot be tied to any cutoff date/year. Kyiv citizen (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought this was obvious but I was not referring to articles on the modern subdivisions but to other articles. The guidance you provide only applies to articles on these subdivisions so it's irrelevant to what I'm referring to. It's also irrelevant to what your doing as I pointed out before so I don't know why you keep using it as justification. Nil Einne (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Internal consistency vs different periods

This is only loosely related to the above so I'll make a simple thread. It recently came up with Mikhail Bulgakov. Is there any guidance on whether MOS:CONSISTENT applies when there's a reference to different time periods? I see there was some earlier discussion on including it within the guidelines but this doesn't seem to have happened or alternatively it's now been removed. To keep things simple, I'll focus on Kyiv/Kiev. Also while I raised Bulgakov as an example I'm thinking generally so let's avoid the specifics. For example, imagine on an article on a person who was born in 1945 and died in 1980 so during a time period where Kiev is preferred. And there's no other reason why either might be preferred (e.g. a Ukrainian nationalist who hated Russia and the Russian language or a Russian nationalist who thought Ukraine should be totally Russian and the Ukrainian language should be replaced with Russian). It seems clear Kiev should be used for any reference to the city during this person's life. But what about references in this person's article to a museum was opened or some building was named after them in Kyiv in 2024? (Let's assume the building has no connection otherwise to the person.) Loosely related but I assume the categories at least should always be Kyiv and not Kiev? Likewise I guess there are some cases where it's clear there should be no consistency e.g. if we're not referring to the city directly so e.g. "supporters Dynamo Kyiv often call his name during matches" then we keep that name. So if the building or museum is named in part after the city then I'm assuming we would also keep that name. So we could have a construction like "the Kyiv Museum of Bulgakov in Kiev houses" assuming it's felt we should be consistent with the city name even over different time periods in one article. (Again I'm just using the Bulgakov as a hypothetical example, let's ignore the specifics of his case.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I wanted to thank you for raising this topic here and openning a bigger discussion about it!

I think your statement it's clear there should be no consistency is not so clear to me and generally is not true. Each editor/creator should be guided by a consistent style guide, independent of the medium he publishes his work in, but obviously including Wikipedia. And this inability to achieve the desired consistency in certain cases is the direct result of the imposed policy of using an arbitrary moratorium cutoff date for Kyiv. BTW, I do not support this moratorium and feel like this needs to be revisisted in the nearest future, since I find more and more evidence on Wikipedia about people not following this policy.

To be clear, I am against changing Kiev -> Kyiv in purely historically derived names, e.g. Kievan Rus', Kiev Pogroms, or Chicken Kiev. But once we refer to the city itself (even in biographies and even in biographies of dead people) and not to the city in the name of a historical event/period/state, we should be free to use either Kyiv or Kiev. The choice here should be guided solely by the style (not any nationalistic ideas and whatsnot), it should be consistent throughout the whole article, and we should have a policy about usage that enables this consistency. Kyiv citizen (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, if you want to be consistent within articles then per the guidance that will need to be Kiev in articles on historic figures etc. That part is clear per the previous consensus and it's not something that can reasonably be changed without another RfC which I doubt there is any appetite for. Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)