Talk:Kyiv/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Medieval Khazar history of Kiev; just added a few sentences; Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2022

I would like to add the following passage to the early history of Kiev: "It is certain that Kiev was a important trade city in the Khazar Empire. Traderoutes between the Khazar capital Atil and cities of middle Europe, like Regensburg, runned through early Kiev. The main figures in this trade were the jewish Radhanite, which made Kiev an important trade city by the end of the 9th century." --Cronitor (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Cronitor (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. It does not appear there is consensus for this addition. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2022

Change {{current}} header from Battle of Kyiv (2022) to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine:

The current event of Battle of Kyiv (2022) has concluded as of time of writing, though updates on the ramifications of this battle on the city are sure to continue—possibly for years. I propose updating this header to point to the larger current event 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine instead. Radio Adept (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

 Already done : template removed. SpinningCeres 14:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2022

I propose that the first sentence of the opening paragraph from

Kyiv (/ˈkiːjɪv/ KEE-yiv, /kiːv/ KEEV; Ukrainian: Київ, pronounced [ˈkɪjiu̯] ^ⓘ), until recently Kiev (/ˈkiːɛv/, KEE-ev, from Russian: Киев), is the capital and most populous city of Ukraine.

be modified so as to assume the following appearance:

Kyiv (/ˈkiːjɪv/ KEE-yiv, /kiːv/ KEEV; Ukrainian: Київ, pronounced [ˈkɪjiu̯] ^ⓘ) or Kiev (/ˈkiːɛv/, KEE-ev, from Russian: Киев), is the capital and most populous city of Ukraine.

This is because the subtitution of 'or' with 'until recently' was made rather arbitrarily. Maciuf (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done - restored previous consensus lead sentence, also removing Russian-language text included solely to show etymology (which is not appropriate per WP:LEADLANG). Kahastok talk 14:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Pronunciation (2)

Because the 'Kyiv' spelling has only recently come into prominence, its pronunciation varies; the following transcriptions can be found: /ˈkiːjɪv, ˈkiːv, ˈkiːiːv, ˈkiːjɪf, ˈkɪjɪf, ˈkiːɪf, ˈkɪjiːuː/. (I do not know to what extent these are a result of usage analysis rather than just guesswork.) I suggest that an appropriate note be added. Also, 'Kiev' may be pronounced /kiːɛf/. Maciuf (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Good to know dictionaries other than M-W have caught up with Kyiv since early March. So I'm not opposed to the general idea of expanding the variants, but I have great reservations about including any transcription that has the phonotactically illegal sequence /ɪj/ (see #KEE-iv not KEEV above). Nardog (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I would also object to using any variant with /ɪj/. Of the remainder, I'd argue that /iːiː/ is not meaningfully different from /iː/, and that /iːɪ/ is not meaningfully different from /iːjɪ/. Also, I am wary of expanding the pronunciation text in line in the the article much beyond what we have for clutter reasons (noting that that is not what the OP proposed). Kahastok talk 18:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

If so, '(/ˈkiːɪv, -ɪf/ KEE-iv, -⁠if, /ˈkiːv/ KEEV)' would do. Maciuf (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

A succession of /i(ː)/ does occur, in medieval, minutiae, etc., though interchangeable with a single /iː/ and (in latter) /iaɪ/. Nardog (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, this skipped my attention. Could you add the /ˈkiːɛf/ pronunciation for the alternative spelling, though? Maciuf (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

As long as all these pronunciations are kept to the Etymology section and not the lead. The lead is already hard to read. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Notes

References

Why Kyiv

Many people like me are unfamiliar with the name, when did the name even change? How did Kiev turn into Kyiv, either way for the sake of simplicity the title can be changed to something along the lines of "Kyiv or Kiev" if you want to keep Kyiv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.241.175.158 (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

For "how", see Talk:Kyiv/Archive_7#Requested_move_28_August_2020 and/or [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

You can also check the article Name of Kyiv. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there can be any debate that this is a purely politically motivated move. Yes, you can go to the page linked above and see a bunch of Americans giving (I think generally fairly poor) rationalisations to try and justify a change they want to make, but this change is not a result of like decades of debate between linguists and scholars as to what the correct form is. The whole change from kiev to kyiv in western rhetoric (not usage, people outside of liberal US circles and some ukranian circles aren't using kyiv, it's media rhetoric) is a direct result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Ukraine and NATO wanting to stick it to Russia. That's why this change is being made, because the editors here agreed they like Kyiv better because of recent political events so they decided to change it. Agree with the change or disagree with it, this is what wikipedia is. 178.16.1.232 (talk) 05:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The move that took place in September 2020 was a direct result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Wikipedians are such visionaries. Nardog (talk) 06:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I misread something so that's my bad, but the point remains (it's not like political stuff wasn't happening there in 2020) and honestly your post doesn't even make sense, Russia annexed crimea in 2014 so they needn't be visionaries, they could just be slow. But yes, my mistake it wasn't a direct result of the current invasion, but all the stuff that was happening that led to the invasion. 178.16.1.232 (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Isn't it just the case that people usually oblige when they're asked to call a place a particular name by its inhabitants? Nobody's business but the Turks, as they say. I don't think most editors here would approve of the government of Myanmar or Eswatini, but those are where the articles currently are, not Burma or Swaziland. We just follow whatever is the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources. But given where Czech Republic and East Timor are, the speed at which reliable sources adopted Kyiv may have been galvanized by politics. And if they hadn't adopted it we wouldn't have moved it. Nardog (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The speed of Czechia adoption is in direct proportionality how Czech Republic promotes and uses it itself (not much... here you have an example how not to do it, but it is getting better...). Kyiv on the other hand was a subject of successful 2018 Ukrainian government campaign -- Although the idea started in 1995, so it did really take ages. And the idea that it is some kind of wikihelp for Ukraine is funny, since the move happened 2 years ago, not now. It was direct result of the fact that news switched too and now it is more apparent than 2 years ago, so the move of wikipedia article would happened eventually. That's why Kyiv. Chrz (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to base it's naming on the WP:COMMONNAME in WP:RELIABLESOURCES. AFAICS "Kiev" is still twice as common as Kyiv according to Ngram Viewer so what an individual government or the media are doing should be irrelevant. This just shows how influenced Western society is by media fashion and Wikipedia will never be great as long as its editors follow current fashion like sheep, ignoring their own policies.Bermicourt (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Since you were not involved in the years-long discussion of the naming of this article, then your simplistic goggle search doesn't even begin to capture the range of data that were used in the decision. Your assertion that it was all politics or "fashion" is false. Unless you have read the pages of discussion, you, to put it politely, are naive in your accusations. A simple ngram isn't a "reliable source". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You might have missed it, but your ngram search ends in 2019, which just happens to be the year when major mainstream media changed the way Kyiv is spelled (see Talk:Kyiv/sources for examples). Today is 2022, and Kyiv is overwhelmingly used by WP:RS. — Exlevan (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 June 2022

Remove "or Kiev". 2001:A61:2440:B101:D52A:E29C:7F62:13DC (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done that would be against consensus and sourcing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit request for Kiev on July 1, 2022

The page "Kiev" (not this article "Kyiv"), should be linked to this Wikidata item. In order to do so, the redirect needs to temporarily be removed since pages cannot be linked to Wikidata whilst they currently are redirects. This can be done by simply removing the first "#" in the page source (and then re-add it when the article has been linked to the Wikidata item). The page is currently protected so that only administrators can edit it, so I am requesting an administrator to perform the edit. It should only take a minute, and I would be happy to assist further if needed. Thanks in advance. 12u (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Done Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Odessa § Requested move 11 July 2022

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Odessa § Requested move 11 July 2022. Rei (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 July 2022

Please remove fake russian name (Kiev) of this beautiful city. The real name is Kyiv, Kiev is a mistake 37.73.73.209 (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. CMD (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The 'Notes' tab should be removed

In my opinion, the 'Notes' tab should be removed if no notes are in it as in my opinion it is pointless having an empty tab within the article. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. —Michael Z. 19:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2022

212.90.61.0 (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

^Kyiv (/ˈkiːjɪv/ KEE-yiv,[10] /ˈkiːv/ KEEV;[11] Ukrainian: Київ, pronounced [ˈkɪjiu̯] (listen)) is the capital and most populous city of Ukraine.^ This is the right version of the begging of this article. Because our city is not KIEV please check it and correct. Thank you

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2022

It’s just Kyiv not Kiev. Kiev is literally russian spelling of it. Why would you even put it here? Let’s then name each city in the world in two different languages, as you do it with Kyiv. What the f’ck? What is even the reason? 185.177.190.203 (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. MadGuy7023 (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Kiev is the main english name for the city historically, and secondly follow WP:CIVIL. Surix321 (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add to notable people/sport

• Oleg Ladik (born 1971), Ukrainian-born Canadian Olympic wrestler

2603:7000:2143:8500:61FF:C1F5:6778:8B3D (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Done --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 September 2022

Please leave only the correct Ukrainian version of city’s name - it is Kyiv! Remove this russian version “Kiev” 91.232.158.87 (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This is a whole thing, and such a change requires discussion and agreement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Kiev isn't the Russian name and Kyiv isn't the Ukrainian name. Both are English names. The first is the historically common one and the second is the currently common one. We mention the Russian and Ukrainian names, Ки́ев and Ки́їв respectively, only as pertains to the derivation of the English forms from those other language forms. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2022

Good sirs,

The Russian and Ukrainian names of Kiev in the should be places in the first sentence next to the spellings of "Kiev" and "Kyiv", such as what we do with the city Lviv.

Please change the first sentence from: Kyiv, also known as Kiev,...

to: Kyiv (Ukrainian: Київ), also known as Kiev (Russian: Киев),...

Thank you. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Those East Slavic spellings are found in detail in the "Names" section, and are therefore unnecessary in the text of the lead. Such things just make the introductory text messy and, in extreme forms, unreadable. The foreign spellings are irrelevant to the vast majority of English language readers. If they are interested, the detail is easily found in the "Names" section. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Then why do we do this in the Lviv and Gdańsk articles? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Because that is an older style of format. Kyiv is a more up-to-date, cleaner format. No information is missing, it is just in a more appropriate place and makes the first sentence infinitely easier to read for English speakers who are trying to do their homework for high school or college courses that don't need all that messy linguistic detail. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean “up-to-date”? Where are these “older style” and “up-to-date” formats documented?

MOS:LEADLANG says “If the subject of the article is closely associated with a non-English language, a single foreign language equivalent name can be included in the lead sentence, usually in parentheses.”

More like ignoring-current-guidelines.  —Michael Z. 17:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

So are you saying that we should not mention the Polish name for Lviv in that article's beginning and the German name for Gdańsk in that article's beginning? And, also, why is this page at "Kyiv"? Hasn't the name been typically at Kiev, as in Chicken Kiev, in English throughout most of history? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Mzajac, by "older style" I didn't mean anything official, but if you look at the trajectory that most of these articles for Ukrainian cities have taken, they are reducing the clutter in the first sentence and moving all that linguistic stuff (except for, sometimes, "a single foreign language equivalent" without phonetic clutter) to the "Names" section, just like at Kyiv and Odesa. Haven't you been involved at those discussions?

User:Ghost of Kiev, that's precisely what I'm saying--that Wikipedia (MOS:LEADLANG) allows for (but doesn't require) a single foreign language equivalent (for the name of the article--Ukrainian for "Lviv" or Polish for "Gdansk"). All other names must be moved to the "Names" section. Of course, some of these articles predate that "single foreign language" text in the MOS and thus the first sentences of the article are unreadable with all the linguistic clutter. As far as "Kyiv" is concerned, go back and read the archives. There are terabytes of discussion over the last decade on the matter. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, in my view less cluttered leads are meant to approach conformance with that guideline which suggests a single foreign name, not to move away from it. In Odesa foreign languages were all removed for lack of consensus only include Ukrainian.  —Michael Z. 00:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

If a name is pretty unpronounceable without a guide, then that could be a time we would include the English pronunciation in the lead. If there are exactly two pronunciations, with no controversy at all, then perhaps instead of a single sentence in a name section we could include both in the lead.... maybe. Otherwise it looks much better and we can go into more detail in a prose naming section than we could ever do in the lead section. Exact vocalization in English isn't the most important aspect of the city. The lead is a summary of the absolute highlights of all the prose. It's why we don't really need references in the lead because it should all be thoroughly referenced in prose. Same with infobox references as everything in the infobox should be in the article proper. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Lviv has way too much clutter in the first sentence. It’s hard to find its second word and actually start reading.

This article is titled Kyiv because of a 2020 consensus decision based on recent changes to prevailing usage.

The 1,500-year-old city’s name was mentioned in English from the early fifteenth century, but the spelling Kiev isn’t attested until the end of the eighteenth. See wikt:Citations:Kiev.  —Michael Z. 00:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Citing pronunciations

In this recent edit @Jargo Nautilus has cited a whole book generally a source for an English pronunciation of 'Kyiv' rather than a specific page number, which seems to go against the guidance for Template:Cite book. Does anyone know which specific page this pronunciation guidance is on? Alssa1 (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: The edit also seems to have put the pronunciation guidance in the Russian-language name of the city, rather than the English one. Alssa1 (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

EDIT2: I've edited the page again after finding that the Longman Pronunciation cited doesn't have a pronunciation of the word 'Kyiv'. Alssa1 (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong page of a wrong edition. The citation is for Kiev, not Kyiv, and it's the third edition, not the second—which still has an entry for Kiev on p. 419. I don't have access to the paper version of the third edition right now so I can't give you the page number, but the electronic version gives the same transcriptions except /-ev/, rather than /-ef/, is given first. Nardog (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, on p419 it does have a pronunciation. But it's not "/ˈkiːɛv/ KEE-ev" that you've added back on to the page. For Kiev it's: 'ki:ef-ev, Russ['kji jif]. For Kyiv ['ki jif]. Alssa1 (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Most folks pronounce the two spellings exactly the same no matter how a guide wants us to pronounce it. We really should have all these messy pronunciations in the lead... it should really be simply "Kyiv, also known as Kiev, is the capital....". Then plop all the details in the name section. Like we do with Odesa and like Britannica does with the subject matter. Ours is a mess for our readers in comparison. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, what's this "Most folks..." based on? Also the idea of having multiple pronunciations has been around on other Wikipedia pages for ages. Even this page had multiple pronunciations prior to someone arbitrarily deciding to remove mention of a Russian name for Kiev not so long ago. Alssa1 (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Like I just said, the edition cited gives the pronunciation given in the article as the primary one. Nardog (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Multiple sources were linked. You are only leaving vocalizations from wikipedia and no outside sources. This is really a biased viewpoint. I have tried several ways to put in the sourced data and you remove them with their sources. If there is a better way to present these facts I can certainly compromise, but just throwing a way sourced vs unsourced info is not the way we do things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

See Russian phonology#Final devoicing. If it sounds like /v/ to English speakers, that is likely because English maintains the voicing contrast in pausa but realizes it by changing not the vibration of the vocal cords but the duration of the preceding vowel (see pre-fortis clipping), so that if the vowel preceding [f] is long enough, it sounds like /v/. As MOS:PRON#Other languages explains, pronunciation in a non-English language should be expressed in the IPA using the conventions laid out in the liked key, and the key for Russian explicitly incorporates devoicing.

The transcriptions in your CBC source are all over the place. Kyiv is said to be pronounced "KEE-ef" and Kiev "kee-EV" in the article while Kyiv is transcribed "KEE-ef" and Kiev "KEE-yev" in the video, even though it's Ukrainian that lacks final devoicing and both place stress on the first syllable, and at 0:52 she clearly says /-jɪv/ as a suggested anglicization. Russian is a well-documented language with a shallow orthography. We can do better by following what scholarly sources say than such a shoddy piece written by a journalist who clearly didn't understand what they were talking about. Nardog (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

You also removed the NY Times source and I can provide many others of kee-EV or key-EV. Now we have a voice pronouncing that is unsourced except from wikipedia and a book I don't own. This is a very dubious source removal that is bordering on wp:idontlikeit. Wikipedia commons also has another Russian voicing which is pronounced [ˈKey-ev] ^ⓘ for a Russian pronunciation which is far different than either case, so this is not cut and dry. Other sites have different pronunciations in Russian which is more like Key-yuf or Key-yif. Leaving only one fairly poor example while ignoring other sourced examples is a disservice to our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2023

The following sentence in the lead is garbled and in places dubious:

• From 1921 onwards, Kyiv was a city of Soviet Ukraine, which was proclaimed by the Red Army, and, from 1934, Kyiv was its capital.

It seems to have been formed by the additon and deletion of various words and phrases over the years. There is no mention in the article of the Red Army "proclaiming" it (proclaiming it as what?). Please change back to the original version of 2005:

• From 1921, Kiev was an important city of Soviet Ukraine, and, from 1934, its capital.

2001:BB6:4734:5658:9C58:EEEF:B86E:2BC1 (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds better, but what is the significance of 1921? UkrSSR established in 1919, Kyiv captured in 1920 I think, USSR formed 1922.

Also might be good to note that the Soviets had already made Kharkiv their capital of Ukraine, to clarify Kyiv’s status after defeat of the UNR.  —Michael Z. 20:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The Soviet Era section says, "From 1921 to 1991, the city formed part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic". If it was in fact captured in 1920, then the article needs to be changed as well as the lead.

By the way, "era" shouldn't be capitalised in the heading, so make that another edit request. 2001:BB6:4734:5658:E8D1:7FAD:81A1:F48F (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Well it looks like following the Kiev Offensive (1920) the Soviets invaded Kyiv again in June 1920 (did they hold it continuously after that?). The war ended and a new Polish–Ukrainian border was agreed with the Peace of Riga in March 1921.  —Michael Z. 23:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Since there appears to be some confusion, perhaps a wikilink from "From 1921" would be appropriate, or maybe the sentence could be written as "Beginning with the Peace of Riga in 1921, Kyiv was...". – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, “which was proclaimed by the Red Army” is undisputedly confusing or wrong, so this needs an edit. I will improve it, and we can keep discussing the details.  —Michael Z. 22:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2023

Kyiv is not also spelled Kiev. Kiev is kyiv in the Russian language. It isn't appropriate to look at ukraine through a Russian lense. Russia is carrying out a war on the culture and language of Ukraine. Using Russian words when talking about Ukraine rather than ukrainian, or English when translating, is subscribing to the Russian attempt to appropriate all things ukrainian and make them Russian. 2A00:23C6:CF1F:4801:E0E4:8277:1F60:550A (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: read the Kyiv#Name section. Cannolis (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, Kyiv#Name section has this problem too. Why it is listed that it's either Kyiv or Kiev in English? It's Ukrainian city, in Ukrainian it's called Київ, romanization is Kyiv. What russian romanization doing there? Metalwish49 (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Kiev is an English spelling that’s been used for about 200 years and is still in use. It is given after also to inform readers that it is now a secondary spelling for many or most purposes. The article has to document this spelling’s history, decline, and current status, not obscure it. —Michael Z. 18:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Romanisation of "Москва" is "Moskva", not "Moscow" ("Moskow" is a romanization of a 500 years old "Московъ")

Other European cities do not need romanisation, because Poles, Czechs, Germans, Italians, Austrians, etc. use Latin alphabet. However,

• In English, we write "Prague" (not "Praha").
• In English, we write "Rome" (not "Roma").
• In English, we write "Munich" (not "Munchen").
• In English, we write "Vienna" (not "Wien").
• In English, we write "Cologne" (not "Koln").
• In English, we write "Warsaw" (not "Warszawa").
• In English, we write "The Hague" (not "Den Haag").
• In English, we write "Lisbon" (not "Lisboa").
• In English, we write "Geneva" (not "Genève").
• In English, we write "Copenhagen" (not "Kobenhavn").
• In English, we write "Aachen" (not "Oche").
• In English, we write "Antwerp" (not "Antwerpen").
• In English, we write "Milan" (not "Milano").
• In English, we write "Venice" (not "Venezia").
• In English, we write "Turin" (not "Torino").
• In English, we write "Florence" (not "Firenze").
• In English, we write "Naples" (not "Napoli").

And so on, and so forth.

I would say, it is rather a rule than exception that English words that we use as names for historically important cities differ from their names in the local languages. The name may change if the city was renamed (for example: "Saint Petersburg" -> "Leningrad", or "Stalingrad" -> "Volgograd"), but not when local spelling changed. Had "Kiev" been ever renamed? No/

500 years ago, the word "Kiev" was recorded mostly as Киевъ or Кыевъ. During those times, "Moscow" was Московъ. In English,

Киевъ became "Kiev" and Московъ became "Moscow". Now Russians pronounce the name of their capital as "Moskva", but they do not care how the name of their capital is written in English. In that sense, they behave as reasonable people, like Czechs, Poles, Italians, etc.

I am sure if the English word for Kiev were something like "Ceeff", that hardly caused any complaints. The problem is that English "Kiev" looks suspiciously similar to Russian Киев.

Keeping in mind that Russia started an absolutely unjustified war against Ukraine, the desire of Ukrainians to disassociate themselves from anything that has a relation to Russia and Russians is quite understandable. In similar situation (I mean WWI), the British royal family even changed their names. However, please, don't try to invent artificial arguments to defend the actions that are motivated by pure politics. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2023

as a Ukrainian Jew, i wood like to correct the info of Jews in Kyiv Kyiv Jew (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Cannolis (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

the name may be finnish for birch tree

the medieval and dark age sources (ex constantine) tend to use spellings that are closer to the contemporary finnish. constantine uses kioava. this is very close to a finnish word for "birch tree", koivu, of which the city is inundated by and which is very important symbol in slavic religion. 107.190.59.215 (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

There's just one flaw in this theory--there are no records of Finnish speakers playing any role in the founding or history of Kyiv. It's possible to find coincidental similarities between any two languages in the world, but there needs to be evidence of actual contact. The Finns were not known for their globe-trotting trading in the Dnipro basin. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2023

Copenhagen in Denmark has become a twin city with Kiev. can we update the "Twin town" category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erobran (talk • contribs) 18:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Any admin can check this? Erobran (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Erobran Done this for you :) Tweedle (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2023

Can we add information on the recent attacks on Ukraine from Russia, with Putin and the Russian military? This is an important part of history now, and will change the lives of everyone around the world. 162.229.178.207 (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Article already mentions the Russian invasion in the history section. What specifically are you requesting? Cannolis (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Reversion of edits on currency symbols

@Bazza 7, the reversion of usage of the hryvnia sign, citing MOS:CURRENCY, is incorrect: MOS:CURRENCY does not once mention not using symbols which are lesser known in English, only linking them in the first mentioned instance.

Mupper-san (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mupper-san: Thanks for discussing. At MOS:CURRENCY#Currencies and monetary values, under "Currency symbols": If there is no common English abbreviation or symbol, follow the ISO 4217 standard. I don't consider the ₴ symbol to be commonly-known in English, so think the article prose should follow that recommendation. The infobox, where space is at a premium, still has it. If you feel strongly about it, I won't challenge a reinstatement, but it would be nice to get some other opinions first. Bazza (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia needs to make information maximally accessible to English speaking readers, particularly in English-speaking countries. As such, the symbols for dollars, pounds, euros, and yen are the only commonly recognized currency symbols, their status as such being found in their presence in the Extended ASCII character set. Symbols for other currencies can (and should be) mentioned (once), but not used generally. This fits in with Wikipedia standards for common English usage. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist, This is not backed up and in fact contradicted by MOS:CURRENCY, which states that symbols of "lesser-known" currencies should be linked first.

Mupper-san (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, I don't think that this is exactly what is meant by "common" abbreviation or symbol, given that lesser-known symbols such as the tögrög symbol are listed separately. And what is considered commonly-known to one English speaker may not necessarily be to another.

Mupper-san (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mupper-san: Your last point is covered by WP:COMMONALITY. Bazza (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

That's true, but I mean more to what extent the hryvnia sign is used in any variety of English; I'm not exactly sure how to check it, or, again, the extent to which that matters, based on my first point.

Mupper-san (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@User:Mupper-san Your argument is that "commonality" is based on what individual speakers of English know--"what is considered commonly-known to one English speaker may not necessarily be to another". That is not what "commonly-known" means. I know a great deal about the vocabularies of several Native American languages. Those Native terms are "commonly-known" to me. But they are not known to the vast majority of English speakers so I do not use them in Wikipedia. "Commonly-known" means that the majority of English speakers recognize the terms or, in this case, symbols. That is not the case with the symbol for hryvnia. Only English speakers who have spent time in Ukraine know that symbol. Indeed, when I lived in Ukraine in the early 2000s, I don't recall ever seeing that symbol at all. The most common representation in English language print and advertising is "UAH". Indeed, if you look on websites in Ukraine that sell to international audiences, the most common representation you see for Ukrainian currency is "UAH" (or грн in Ukrainian) (see [2], [3], and [4] as examples). I rarely see that obscure symbol even though I regularly purchase books from Ukrainian sources (such as [5], but [6] switches back to грн). Your definition of "commonly-known" fails, both as a logical argument to make in Wikipedia and as the reality in the real world. Wikipedia must make information readily accessible to English readers and while that obscure symbol for hryvnia can be mentioned, the usual notation in English is still "UAH" (when the prices are not converted to dollars, pounds, or euros) and that is the common usage that must be followed. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The argument that you make, having lived in Ukraine during the early 2000s, firstly cannot be claimed as a source of proof given both WP:NOR and the fact that the hryvnia symbol was only designed in 2003. Secondly, you are again glossing over what I have said - the extent to which commonality matters in this specific case given the fact that "lesser-known" currency signs are noted separately from commonality in MOS:CURRENCY. This is additionally backed up in WP:MOS, where it is written, "Generally, use the full name of a currency, and link it on its first appearance if English-speakers are likely to be unfamiliar with it (52 Nepalese rupees); subsequent occurrences can use the currency sign (just 88 Rs)." In the MOS, it states nothing about not using signs that are not yen, pound, or dollar, as you said, and once again contains information on how to format lesser-known currency signs.

Mupper-san (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

My personal experience was not the only argument I made (obviously being the very weakest). My argument was that even though MOS:CURRENCY allows for the use of rarely occurring official symbols for a currency, it is by no means required and the function of Wikipedia is for an English-speaking audience. Thus usage of ISO 4217 abbreviations for currencies other than dollars, pounds, euros, and yen (which are commonly and widely known) is preferable to extremely rare currency symbols used in every national article. Compare India, where economic data is given in dollars rather than rupees (₹), or Nepal where all actual numbers are given in dollars and the only reference to Nepalese rupees is in the infobox. Even at Ukraine, currency is universally listed in dollars except for one instance of the UAH symbol. Using rare currency symbols is problematic for readability. English speakers who don't know much at all about Ukraine are our audience here and "UAH" with a parenthetical mention of the symbol is far more readable than trying to force a rarely used currency symbol on them. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, I return to MOS:CURRENCY's note that it is acceptable to use lesser-known currency symbols, as long as they are linked - I don't see how doing the same with the hryvnia sign is somehow "forcing" a lesser-used currency symbol on Anglophone audiences, especially if it is linked and therefore clearly indicates what the sign means, per the MOS.

I'll also note that UP uses the hryvnia sign in English articles, compared to the Ukrainian-language version, where it uses грн.

I further don't really see how the argument you make about India and Nepal is significant, given the rupee sign is used five times within the article and the ISO code only once, in the infobox. The usage of US$ as quantifying the amount of another currency, while another matter, is something I don't have a problem with.

Additionally, on your last argument, that Wikipedia does not appeal simply to those who don't know much about a subject, per the content assessment scale, and while you're indeed correct that they may not be aware that the Ukrainian currency symbol is ₴, I don't see how that couldn't be solved by linking it in the first case, as with any other topic in the article which may be unfamiliar to those who aren't well-read on Ukraine or another topic in the article.

Mupper-san (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Naming of Kiev/Kyiv in Ortelius

This article claims that 'On one of the oldest English maps of the region, Russiae, Moscoviae et Tartariae, published by Ortelius (London, 1570), the name of the city is spelled Kiou.' An English map made by Ortelius was published in London in 1570, without any source. The article on Ortelius states that Theatrum Orbis Terrarum was indeed published in 1570, but not in london, and definitely not in English, but in Latin. I request to remove this part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.90.80.212 (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2023

Removing stress mark in this word, rendered as "Ukrainian: Київ", in the "Name" section.2001:4451:824F:B700:541B:9433:F4CB:52ED (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Київ is the correct spelling of Kyiv in Ukrainian. Xan747 (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe the request is to remove the acute accent marking syllabic stress in “Ки́їв.” This is a Ukrainian-language dictionary convention, but is not used in English. It is useful for native or beginning readers of Ukrainian, but potentially misleading to non-readers who need to access the native name for any reason. Our Wiki way of indicating stress is in the IPA transcription.

The use of these has been subject to debate previously. We really need a broader consensus on the use of them, but there is a good case for removing it.  —Michael Z. 18:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I see there is an essay recommending against this usage in Russian (where it is identical to Ukrainian AFAIK): Wikipedia:Stress marks in Russian words.  —Michael Z. 18:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the assistance! Xan747 (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2023

Kyiv can't be called Kiev, because Russian is not an official language in Ukraine. 89.1.213.77 (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The official status of a language is irrelevant to whether a significant number of sources refer to its name in that language. While we do follow the official Ukrainian name for the main article title, it is important information to readers to know that it was in the past called Kiev in the Russian language. lizthegrey (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Even your response misses most of the point

This article mentions "Kiev" not because it was the Russian name, but because KIEV WAS THE ENGLISH NAME FOR A COUPLE HUNDRED YEARS AND THAT FORM IS STILL MORE FAMILIAR TO MANY ENGLISH SPEAKERS. It's not about Russian or Ukrainian, it's about ENGLISH. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay. And why does it mention Киев and Кіевъ?  —Michael Z. 01:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Likely for the same reason it mentions Ки́їв. None of those are English in the least but the local population has their own spellings and pronunciations unrelated to English that we include, as an encyclopedia should. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

For the same reason as it does with Київ. Summer ^talk 15:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

"it was in the past called Kiev in the Russian language."

Perhaps it would make sense (and be more clear) if "also spelled Kiev" was changed to "formerly spelled Kiev"? Tiduszk (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

"Kiev" and "Kyiv" aren't "different spellings" they are different names for the same place that came from different languages and entered English separately. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Then maybe "formerly transliterated as Kiev" would work? We seem to be in agreement that the current "also spelled Kiev" is insufficient. Tiduszk (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

No, we're not. There is nothing wrong with the current phrasing. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

You said "Kiev was the English name..." They key being past tense. The article uses present tense implying that both are currently used equally, which is not true. Tiduszk (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

They are both used in English a lot! Kyiv nay be more prevalent in official sources, but Kiev is also used quite a bit. Both spellings are used in English. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, Wiki has notable influence on the coverage of diffent issues.

The point is that Ukrainians wish their capital was known and called as Kyiv, not Kiev. Due to history of Ukraine, "Kiev" is not original name of the city and it is considered as an example of imperial *russian* encroachment on the cultural identity of Ukraine.

In this case, the formulation that is written on the page today presents the view on Ukraine through russian eyes. It feels bad, as if somebody tried to explain the history of India through prism of the history of Great Britain.

Hope you'll understand my point. 91.123.150.52 (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The view isn't through either Ukrainian or Russian "eyes", it's the view from English common usage. English speakers don't know or care where names come from, they just use the names that they've always used or learned. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Not a great argument. There are many words and names no longer used or outright taboo because of where they came from.  —Michael Z. 17:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Not that many actually, but even those that are changed take a long time to change and usually involve "fights" over history and family tradition. Just look at how hard it is to change Confederate names in the southern US. That war ended 160 years ago and it still takes a presidential order to change the name of military bases from slave-owning Confederate generals who were the enemies of the US. And changing offensive placenames and school mascots related to Native Americans takes even longer and requires greater local effort. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you may be speaking from a recentist selection bias, forgetting all of the early changes. For example, “the Ukraine” disappeared almost immediately in professional use. No one ever debated Lvov or Kharkov. No one kept using Peking. I also think of the use of Eskimo, and Indian for First Nations, in Canada, and the n-word in the USA and elsewhere.

(Confederate names is not a good example, because the attitude in the South didn’t change 160 years ago. Compare decommunization in Ukraine, which starred in 1991 but has proceeded in several waves since.)

Anyway, the use of Kiev in public writing now is often, or maybe usually a clear intentional marker of POV.  —Michael Z. 13:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

English is not an official language in Ukraine as well 176.99.214.127 (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

English is the official language of this version of Wikipedia, so the most common English forms of names are, indeed, "official" in the world of Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Does that mean that everyone, regardless of the language they use, must use the Ukrainian Cyrillic spelling of the city's name to refer to it? Summer ^talk 12:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

"Kyiv" is not written in the Cyrillic alphabet, it's written in the Roman alphabet. So your comment is rather meaningless. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Kiev Spelling

In the infobox, the name "Kiev" is under the Ukrainian Cyrillic spelling, and the Russian Kiev should be added under the latin. TheLordKaio (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

No. The spelling "Kiev" is there because it is a common and historic ENGLISH spelling. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The three lines in the infobox are name, native_name (“Name in the local language, if different from name, and if not English. This will display below the name/official name.”), and other_name (“For places with a former or more common name like Bombay or Saigon”). See the documentation for {{Infobox settlement}}.

I agree that it is unclear what they are, but the real fix is an improvement to infobox template or the way it is used.  —Michael Z. 20:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2023

In section #Twin towns – sister cities, add the following entry/line

• Berlin, Germany (2023)

since Berlin has a confirmed twin status with Kyiv since today. See press portal of the city of Berlin for reference https://www.berlin.de/aktuelles/8445429-958090-neue-staedtepartnerschaft-mit-kyiv-vital.html Mesotron (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done StartOkayStop (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2023

IN THE CLIMATE SECTION, there are some modifications needed to be changed. Make some slight modifications to the weather box. The top one is the old one, and the bottom one is the new one. Some months' records are outdated. (January, June, September, October, and December record high needs to be updated)

Climate data for Kyiv (1991–2020, extremes 1881–present)
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Record high °C (°F)	11.1 (52.0)	17.3 (63.1)	22.4 (72.3)	30.2 (86.4)	33.6 (92.5)	35.0 (95.0)	39.4 (102.9)	39.3 (102.7)	33.8 (92.8)	28.0 (82.4)	23.2 (73.8)	14.7 (58.5)	39.4 (102.9)
Mean daily maximum °C (°F)	−0.8 (30.6)	0.7 (33.3)	6.5 (43.7)	15.0 (59.0)	21.1 (70.0)	24.6 (76.3)	26.5 (79.7)	25.9 (78.6)	20.0 (68.0)	12.9 (55.2)	5.3 (41.5)	0.5 (32.9)	13.2 (55.8)
Daily mean °C (°F)	−3.2 (26.2)	−2.3 (27.9)	2.5 (36.5)	10.0 (50.0)	15.8 (60.4)	19.5 (67.1)	21.3 (70.3)	20.5 (68.9)	14.9 (58.8)	8.6 (47.5)	2.6 (36.7)	−1.8 (28.8)	9.0 (48.2)
Mean daily minimum °C (°F)	−5.5 (22.1)	−5.0 (23.0)	−0.8 (30.6)	5.7 (42.3)	10.9 (51.6)	14.8 (58.6)	16.7 (62.1)	15.7 (60.3)	10.6 (51.1)	5.1 (41.2)	0.4 (32.7)	−3.9 (25.0)	5.4 (41.7)
Record low °C (°F)	−32.9 (−27.2)	−32.2 (−26.0)	−24.9 (−12.8)	−10.4 (13.3)	−2.4 (27.7)	2.4 (36.3)	5.8 (42.4)	3.3 (37.9)	−2.9 (26.8)	−17.8 (0.0)	−21.9 (−7.4)	−30.0 (−22.0)	−32.9 (−27.2)
Average precipitation mm (inches)	38 (1.5)	40 (1.6)	40 (1.6)	42 (1.7)	65 (2.6)	73 (2.9)	68 (2.7)	56 (2.2)	57 (2.2)	46 (1.8)	46 (1.8)	47 (1.9)	618 (24.3)
Average extreme snow depth cm (inches)	9 (3.5)	11 (4.3)	7 (2.8)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	2 (0.8)	5 (2.0)	11 (4.3)
Average rainy days	8	7	9	13	14	15	14	11	14	12	12	9	138
Average snowy days	17	17	10	2	0.2	0	0	0	0.03	2	9	16	73
Average relative humidity (%)	82.7	80.1	74.0	64.3	62.0	67.5	68.3	66.9	73.5	77.4	84.6	85.6	73.9
Mean monthly sunshine hours	42	64	112	162	257	273	287	252	189	123	51	31	1,843
Average ultraviolet index	1	1	2	4	6	7	6	6	4	2	1	1	3
Source 1: Pogoda.ru.net, Central Observatory for Geophysics (extremes), World Meteorological Organization (humidity 1981–2010)
Source 2: Danish Meteorological Institute (sun, 1931–1960) and Weather Atlas

Climate data for Kyiv (1991–2020, extremes 1881–present)
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Record high °C (°F)	13.2 (55.8)	17.3 (63.1)	22.4 (72.3)	30.2 (86.4)	33.6 (92.5)	35.5 (95.9)	39.4 (102.9)	39.3 (102.7)	35.7 (96.3)	27.9 (82.2)	23.2 (73.8)	15.2 (59.4)	39.4 (102.9)
Mean daily maximum °C (°F)	−0.8 (30.6)	0.7 (33.3)	6.5 (43.7)	15.0 (59.0)	21.1 (70.0)	24.6 (76.3)	26.5 (79.7)	25.9 (78.6)	20.0 (68.0)	12.9 (55.2)	5.3 (41.5)	0.5 (32.9)	13.2 (55.8)
Daily mean °C (°F)	−3.2 (26.2)	−2.3 (27.9)	2.5 (36.5)	10.0 (50.0)	15.8 (60.4)	19.5 (67.1)	21.3 (70.3)	20.5 (68.9)	14.9 (58.8)	8.6 (47.5)	2.6 (36.7)	−1.8 (28.8)	9.0 (48.2)
Mean daily minimum °C (°F)	−5.5 (22.1)	−5.0 (23.0)	−0.8 (30.6)	5.7 (42.3)	10.9 (51.6)	14.8 (58.6)	16.7 (62.1)	15.7 (60.3)	10.6 (51.1)	5.1 (41.2)	0.4 (32.7)	−3.9 (25.0)	5.4 (41.7)
Record low °C (°F)	−31.1 (−24.0)	−32.2 (−26.0)	−24.9 (−12.8)	−10.4 (13.3)	−2.4 (27.7)	2.5 (36.5)	5.8 (42.4)	3.3 (37.9)	−2.9 (26.8)	−17.8 (0.0)	−21.9 (−7.4)	−30.0 (−22.0)	−32.2 (−26.0)
Average precipitation mm (inches)	38 (1.5)	40 (1.6)	40 (1.6)	42 (1.7)	65 (2.6)	73 (2.9)	68 (2.7)	56 (2.2)	57 (2.2)	46 (1.8)	46 (1.8)	47 (1.9)	618 (24.3)
Average extreme snow depth cm (inches)	9 (3.5)	11 (4.3)	7 (2.8)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	2 (0.8)	5 (2.0)	11 (4.3)
Average rainy days	8	7	9	13	14	15	14	11	14	12	12	9	138
Average snowy days	17	17	10	2	0.2	0	0	0	0.03	2	9	16	73
Average relative humidity (%)	82.7	80.1	74.0	64.3	62.0	67.5	68.3	66.9	73.5	77.4	84.6	85.6	73.9
Mean monthly sunshine hours	42	64	112	162	257	273	287	252	189	123	51	31	1,843
Average ultraviolet index	1	1	2	4	6	7	6	6	4	2	1	1	3
Source 1: Pogoda.ru.net, Central Observatory for Geophysics (extremes), World Meteorological Organization (humidity 1981–2010)
Source 2: Danish Meteorological Institute (sun, 1931–1960) and Weather Atlas

Solids02 (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Kyiv is Ukrainian, Kiev - Russian?

Hi @TaivoLinguist:.

1. It's not just "in English", it's in any of the 3 languages I speak.

2. Ukraine, as soon as it achieved full independence, changed Kiev to Kyiv.

3. The "Name" section, which you invoke, says the same! Check the vowels. And that is indeed the strongest argument.

4. It is VERY relevant in the current context of Ukr. vs. Russ. nationalism, and relevant stuff belings in the lead.

Now if you can prove that it's poteytoh - potahtow, then go ahead, bring your arguments. But as it is - you owe me a convincing explanation :) Which I'm looking forward to! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"Kiev" is the longstanding English name. "Kyiv" is the recently adopted English name. Yes, they are derived from Russian and Ukrainian respectively, but they are not the same. You can tell because we are writing in English. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 22:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Khajidha nailed it. This is the English Wikipedia and we record the English names that are used and don't really care about the Ukrainian, Russian, Bulgarian, Swahili, or Navajo names. The "Names" or "Etymology" section exists for people who are curious about the origins of the English names, but most English speakers don't care. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Neither Kiev or Kyiv are English-origin names. And English didn't "adopt" Kyiv, since the English language has no universal authority. What is true is that many Western media outlets shifted to Kyiv in 2022, in the context of the war reporting. However I'd still bet large part of English-speakers would still use the name Kiev in informal verbal communication, personally I'm yet to encounter a single individual using a different pronounciation than the pre-2022 Kiev in English. --Soman (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

1) English origin is irrelevant to English usage. The "English name" of something is the term used in English language sources. That name can be derived from any language or even just created whole cloth. For example, "Los Angeles" is the English name of that city even though it originated in Spanish. 2) I used "adopt" in the sense of "came into widespread usage", not as in "regulated by an authority". 3) Agreed on the continuing usage of "Kiev" in pronunciation (and even in many written forms). --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Origin is relevant in this case. English adopted a different spelling exactly because the respective names are Ukrainian and Russian, native and colonial, in etymology, history, and popular association.  —Michael Z. 19:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

It may look on the surface that the origin language is the key feature, but there's a subtle difference. The government of Ukraine chose an "official English spelling" and, after the russians invaded in 2014, it began to influence American media as support for Ukraine to use the Ukrainian spelling. So the proximate cause for the change was that it was a push by the government of Ukraine, not because it was "the Ukrainian spelling". It's a subtle difference, to be sure, but the change wasn't directly because "Kyiv is Ukrainian". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Just look at the persistence throughout the 20th century for the use of "Russia" to refer to the "Soviet Union". The Soviets never put up a political stink (because their foreign representatives were 90% russians) so the "new" name never stuck very well except in official documents. But the Ukrainians were more forceful in their media efforts to change "Kiev" to "Kyiv", thus the change happened nearly universally in the media and in official documents. Sure, a lot of people still use "Kiev", but not as many as used "Russia" (and still do) for the Soviet Union. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

[Citation needed.] I think you might be fabricating a cause to suit your worldview, but I’m interested in sources that support the idea, if they exist.

On the contrary, it was Russian diplomats and Russian academics and their disciples in the West that actively perpetuated colonial language. (If you don’t believe that, haven’t you noticed they conned the entire UN into giving the RSFSR a UNSC seat just by changing its name and sending a letter?) In case you haven’t seen it, here again is a link to a good overview of the academic situation.[7]

Decolonization of language happened organically, but haphazardly. The Ukraine was dropped almost literally on day one. Are you old enough to remember how up to 1991 every map had Chernovtsy, Kharkov, Krivoy Rog, Lugansk, Lvov, Rovno, Zaporozhye, etcetera? Remember how odd it looked at first when atlases i mediately started using Kyyiv or Kyjiv, Kryvyy Rih, and so on? Nearly full Ukrainization was promptly adopted by diplomats, mapmakers, etc. before Ukraine even established a romanization system, much less started promoting #KyivNotKiev more than two decades later. The only holdouts in newsrooms and non-cartographic print publishing were the few very widely known names, “Kiev,” “Odessa,” and “Dnieper,” because senior editors didn’t have deep knowledge of “the Ukraine,” but are conservative codgers about what they did encounter in their only elective in the “Russian Sudies” department in 1952.  —Michael Z. 02:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Don’t be discouraged by the naysayers above. Although this article fairly thoroughly covers the history of naming, it dances around clearly stating the connotations of using the Ukrainian name Kyiv or Russian name Kiev, as is stated in so many words in dozens of articles from the last few years. It’s the main subject of a lot of recent writing, and so should probably be stated plainly in the Name section, if not in the lead.  —Michael Z. 19:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

There are no connotations to using Kiev in English beyond it being what has been used for centuries. It is of no more meaning than the fact that a German city has a French derived name in English (Cologne). --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you serious? Literally the first search result for Kyiv Kiev spelling, CBC,[8] says it is political, Kiev is “The Russian version,” and their quoted expert says “‘Kiev’ is now associated with the Russification of Ukraine.”

Do you need me to find a dozen more examples?  —Michael Z. 22:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Here’s a rather good story on the topic from The Jewish Daily Forward.[9]  —Michael Z. 03:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Neither of those is a reliable source on English usage. Heck, the second even says that is political FOR UKRAINE. Not for English speakers.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 04:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The second is a reliable source on the opinion of the quoted experts. In case you didn’t notice, it’s about English spelling. Your reductive reinterpretation is not a reasonable one. I think it should be cited in this article, and I can reinforce the facts with dozens of other articles. You have a problem with it, then please start a discussion at WP:RSN.  —Michael Z. 04:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Click plz on the illustration "Legendary Kyi, Shchek, Khoryv and Lybid in the Radziwiłł Chronicle"/ The last line of the text is: (и сотвори)ша городокъ въ имя брата их старшаго. и нарекоша Киев. Translation: And (they) built a town. and called it Kiev after the name of the older brother — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.233.220.41 (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

So? This was written long after the city was actually founded. Such founding took place 1) before Ukrainian and Russian were distinct languages and 2) before the Cyrillic alphabet was created. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

1) I think, late prof. A.Zalizniak was the best expert in Old Russian dialectology. He said the main dialects of Old Russian were Nothern (Novgorod/Pskov) and Southern (Kiev,Chernigov, Moscow, Ryazan', Suzdal' etc). At present state of science, he said, we (scientists) see either no differences in language of Moscow, Kiev, Chernigov, Suzdal' etc in 14th century or some very small. Some differences began to appear in 15th century due to the political borders between Lithuania and Russia. What we call today Ukraine and Belorussia were the lands of lithuanian princes. BTW, they spoke Russian, being half Russian by blood. All oldest cronicles (when the language was still the same for all "southern" Russians) use the name Kiev. Many Zalizniak's lections are available on Youtube (mostly in Russian)

2) We have no audio or video records from those times just texts. Prof. Zalizniak worked with texts written in real spoken language of those times fixed on birch barks 77.233.220.41 (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Protection (culture section)

Hello,

I was thinking of adding a new paragraph about protection, in the culture section. UNESCO has just added a world heritage site in Kyiv to the list of World Heritage in Danger. Here's what I wrote:

"In September 2023, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee placed Kyiv’s Saint Sophia Cathedral and the Pechersk-Lavra Monastery on the List of World heritage in danger. According to the committee, although the Ukrainian government has taken action to protect the sites "optimal conditions are no longer met to fully guarantee the protection of the Outstanding Universal Value of the property and that it is threatened by potential danger due to the war”. The list is protected by the 1972 UNESCO Convention, ratified by both Russia and Ukraine. Inclusion on the list is intended to mobilize urgent international support."1234

References I used:

1. https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/09/15/unesco-adds-kyiv-lviv-sites-world-heritage-danger

2. https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-un-heritage-war-54620f9e495fe50349cc568c8347ab87

3. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russia-war-heritage-site-unesco-b2412697.html

4. https://whc.unesco.org/en/158/

E.poul (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Two notes:

• The sentence that starts "According to the committee, if..." should be "According to the committee, although the Ukrainian government has taken actions...".
• There are two locations in Kyiv that were added to UNESCO's list: St. Sophia's and the Pechersk-Lavra Monastery.

--TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much @TaivoLinguist! E.poul (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist could you make the change please? E.poul (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Kyiv Castle dating to the Middle Ages

What are arguments to exclude valuable content about the Kyiv Castle which dates to the Middle Ages and is described in English Wikipedia article Zamkova Hora and two Ukrainian Wikipedia articles (see: Київський замок and Замкова гора (Київ)? @Khajidha: your arguments "don't seem very notable to me" (diff) looks like just a personal opinion, not a valid argument to remove this referenced information from the article. So if no valid arguments will be presented, then I will restore version (my diff) which was removed by @Bazza 7: (diff) also without proper content-wise arguments why this content should be excluded from the article. -- Pofka (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Your addition doesn't make clear why this particular castle is important. Was it the earliest recorded settlement in the area? Was it the largest castle in the area? Did a notable warlord operate from it? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Khajidha: Yes the castle was of very high importance at the time as it was the residence of Kyiv governors. See Google translation from the Ukrainian Wikipedia article Київський замок:

"The castle was the residence of Prince Vladimir Olgerdovich of Kyiv (1362–1394) and his son Semyon (1440–1455) and grandson Olelka (1455–1470). Under Volodymyr Olherdovych, a mint was located here, where the first Ukrainian coin was minted.

In 1416, the castle stood during the devastation of Kyiv by the Golden Horde led by Emir Edigei.

In 1471, after the liquidation of the Kyiv principality, the Kyiv castle became the official residence of Kyiv voivodes, in particular, such as: Kostiantyn-Vasyl Ostrozky (1559–1608), Stanislav Zholkivskyi (1608–1620), Adam Kysil (1649–1653)."

The castle is clearly of great importance and a dedicated article should be created about it in English Wikipedia as well. Sadly, I'm not capable of researching Ukrainian sources. -- Pofka (talk) 10:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If you would have mentioned any of that in your addition, I would not have removed it. As it was, it seemed rather unconnected to anything. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pofka I undid your restoration because you did not follow WP:BRD, as I stated in my edit summary. Thank you for doing so now. Bazza (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pofka your addition still doesn't make it clear why this castle is important enough to be in the article. So there was a castle. So what. Why should the reader care? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Khajidha: Hi, I added additional information (based on an Ukrainian source) in order to explain the historical significance of this castle (see: 1). More expansion in the dedicated article Zamkova Hora will have to be made by the Ukrainians themselves because as I already noted previously my capability to research the Ukrainian sources is very limited. -- Pofka (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)