Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Yet another one

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kyiv The regulation of Ukraine's Cabinet of Ministers of January 21, 2010 establishes the rules of transliteration of Ukrainian alphabet to Latin letters. So, let’s see. Ukrainian is a state language of Ukraine, as it is stated in the Constitution of the country (art. 10). That means that the names must be transliterated to Latin from Ukrainian language version. In Ukrainian, the capital’s name is Київ. Using the transliteration rules, it will be:

К k (Ukrainian) = K k (Latin)

И и = Y y

Ї ї = Yi (at the beginning of the word) and i – in other places.

В в = V v

So, based on the Ukrainian laws, the official and correct way to write the name of Ukraine’s capital is ‘Kyiv’. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.64.177 (talk • contribs)

• Ukrainian law applies within the territory of the Ukraine only, nowhere else, while Wikipedia geolocates to the United States, so what Ukrainian law says is totally irrelevant. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Unrelated: What transliteration rules does English Wikipedia use for names which completely lack English sources? Is in such cases Ukrainian law totally irrelevant too and some other way of transliteration is devised? Chrzwzcz (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

We use WP:UKR--Ymblanter (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

So Ukrainian transliteration really has no effect at all, for any person or place, yet alone Kyiv. Only for some precision notes (Context and intent #2) but not for general usage. Chrzwzcz (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It probably has some effect within the Ukraine, but no one outside the Ukraine cares about what Ukrainian law says, since it only applies within the Ukraine. And the same goes for all other national laws, regardless of country, with the exception of the laws of the United States, since Wikipedia is located in the United States... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, most countries are sane enough to not adopt laws how their toponyms must be transliterated to English.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Well is it transliteration into English? Isn't it just something I would call "Ukrainian latin alphabet"? Something similar to Serbian_language#Writing_system...? Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

No, for example transliteration into German or French will be different.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"most countries are sane enough" - I don't see a problem, whey MUST have some system how to do transliteration, for passport purposes, travel guides in latin alphabet... So they devised some. As I see Romanization of Ukrainian I am no wiser what system Wikipedia follows and why so many systems exist. Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not what we are discussing. The insanity comes from saying that other languages must use the Ukrainian standard forms in their general usage. Like writing Wikipedia. --Khajidha (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as the "Ukrainian Latin alphabet". Ukrainian is written in the Cyrillic alphabet. Serbian can be written in either (my Serbian translation of Lord of the Rings was written in the Latin alphabet, for example), but not Ukrainian. So any such comment like "standard Ukrainian Latin alphabet" is like talking about unicorns. You might like them to exist, but they don't. --Taivo (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Similar, I said similar. Ugh... Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Less smug answer for those who keep proposing Kyiv: YES, Kyiv IS proper transliteration of Ukrainian name of the city. It is proper transliteration not just according to Ukrainian law (which means nothing to Wikipedia), but also according to several transliteration systems which English itself used/is using. BUT English language (sources) chose not to use transliterated version of the name, because English language (sources) already had its own name for the city - Kiev. It may be similar to Russian version, but what can you do... Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me the smugness or arrogance is on the other side. I mean, really, I am astounded by the number of people with the balls to try to tell another language community that they are not allowed to do things their way but must conform to this outside way. --Khajidha (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no 'similar' here... and I have no idea of why you're so confounded, Chrzwzcz. It's simple: WP:COMMONNAME. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"Smugness" or "arrogance" are terms completely incompatible with the Ukrainian government providing guidance to the English-speaking world as to the proper name of its capital city. Such guidance may be accepted or rejected on a newspaper-by-newspaper or magazine-by-magazine basis, but had this guidance not been provided, an argument could have been made that Ukraine tacitly accepts that its capital city is referenced in the English-speaking world by its Russian name. No nation and its people would accept that its capital or its key cities are known to English speakers by names with which they disagree.

In the early years of Wikipedia, there were arguments over the names of Ukraine's second, third and fourth-largest cities — Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk/Dnipro and Odesa — as to whether their articles' main title headers should carry those cities' Russian names — Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk/Dnepr and Odessa (Wikipedia's "Odessa" header still remains under its Russian name). Most of Wikipedia's main headers for the other cities' articles have been changed to their Ukrainian forms, although a few have remained in their Russian forms, with unsuccessful move requests (Talk:Kirovsk, Luhansk Oblast#Requested move 12 April 2018 or Talk:Sverdlovsk, Luhansk Oblast#Requested move 3 May 2018).    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This it it right here. You can answer them calmly - my "no, transliteration does not apply here, not Ukrainian transliteration or any other", or with your typical "go away, Ukrainians are arrogant and ignorant, do not tell me what English language may accept". If their way is arrogant, you responses are arrogant too, it is not a proper way how to solve things here. Eg. what keeps you from creating short summary on the beginning of this page?! You just throw there links with archive and that's it. And when another uninformed editor comes, he propose it again because is it reasonable to make him read all the archive messages? And what you do? You add "Yet another one" heading as "Here we go again, another i***t". Chrzwzcz (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

(ec) We can do that, the point is usually that people would not agree with the summary. They just KNOW that the TRUE English name is Kyiv.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Then at least try, do not assume it would not work. It is more time consuming to answer over and over again to same remarks. Maybe you like it to argue over and over?! :) "They just KNOW that the TRUE English name is Kyiv." - so prepare answer to that too ;) Chrzwzcz (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Roman Spinner, you are still confused. "Kiev" and "Odessa" are not the "Russian names" for the cities, they are the English names for those cities. The Russian names are Киев and Одесса. Kiev and Odessa have been the two most widely used placenames in English for cities in Ukraine so the other city names simply do not have a firm place in the English language. Thus, the forms used in English for those other cities have changed over the last two decades since they are hardly ever mentioned and writers who do mention them generally have to look them up and often do on-the-spot transliteration from Ukrainian. Many US place names are "Odessa", so that's not going to change in English. Kiev is mentioned more often than any other Ukrainian city and its English name is still firmly Kiev. So stop talking about "Russian names". Kiev and Odessa have English names. --Taivo (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Chrzwzcz, there already is a short summary of move requests at the top of the page. It's in the second ochre box at the top--all the Requests for Move over the last decade with links to the discussions. And it is reasonable to expect editors to read the background information. The professor of a class is perfectly reasonable to expect his/her students to read the homework before arriving in class. --Taivo (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

What in there is short summary? Read those thousands of messages in the archive? Much simpler to sum it up. Chrzwzcz (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Why do we need to make a short summary? Why does this request keep getting made? It makes no sense! I would never presume to tell speakers of another language that their use of their own language is wrong. I would expect such rudeness to be called out and smacked down hard. --Khajidha (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

FAQ. Why do web pages have FAQ sections? In order to redirect readers to it and not waste time on answering the same questions over and over again. Impolite answers cannot be taken seriously (it does not seem like fair Wikipedia treatment) and same request is repeated in order to find more polite editor with reasonable polite rejection of proposal. Chrzwzcz (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope, impolite questions cannot be taken seriously. --Khajidha (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

"No nation and its people would accept that its capital or its key cities are known to English speakers by names with which they disagree." See, THIS makes no sense. On what basis can you "disagree" with the words of another language? It makes no more sense than saying "you can't call that color "red"" or "you can't call that shape a "circle"". No matter what your name for my country, my response is going to be "Okay, that's cool. I'll use that when I'm speaking your language." Just as it would be for any word in your language. --Khajidha (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please add

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kyiv The regulation of Ukraine's Cabinet of Ministers of January 21, 2010 establishes the rules of transliteration of Ukrainian alphabet to Latin letters. So, let’s see. Ukrainian is a state language of Ukraine, as it is stated in the Constitution of the country (art. 10). That means that the names must be transliterated to Latin from Ukrainian language version. In Ukrainian, the capital’s name is Київ. Using the transliteration rules, it will be:

К k (Ukrainian) = K k (Latin)

И и = Y y

Ї ї = Yi (at the beginning of the word) and i – in other places.

В в = V v

So, based on the Ukrainian laws, the official and correct way to write the name of Ukraine’s capital is ‘Kyiv’.

Can an established editor please add, under Notable Residents ..

• Oleksii Bychenko (born 1988), Kiev-born Israeli figure skater, Olympian

Thank you.

--2604:2000:E016:A700:51D7:BBA3:E091:5DDA (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ukrainian laws only apply in Ukraine. They do not apply to the English language Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The guidance is not solely on the basis of Ukrainian laws, but is based upon "Kyiv" being used by such WP:RELIABLESOURCES as United States Department of State, Lonely Planet (the world's largest publisher of travel books) and various newspapers, Miami Herald in particular.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kyiv

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You renamed Peking to Beijing, it's same here. Kiev - old spelling of Kyiv that was used in past times when Ukraine was occupied by russia. Our capital's name is Kyiv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.179.18.196 (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Would you please stop vandalizing Arkady Babchenko. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

So? There's other cities and countries we haven't changed. --Khajidha (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not. Kiev was not really "renamed" renamed. Dnipro is good example how to truly rename a city :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Kiev was not renamed in either Ukrainian or Russian. But the name of Ukraine's capital in English is Kiev. You are asking that it be renamed in English. Until English speakers actually change the name that they use for the city, then this discussion, as all such discussions in the past, is moot. --Taivo (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Both are in English, one is common, one less common. Anyway first sentence of the article still does not contain ENGLISH pronunciation of Kyiv. That should be the only focus for now: Kiev (/ˈkiːɛf, -ɛv/ KEE-ef, -ev) or Kyiv (nothing - KEE-ef, KEE-if, who knows, nobody cares)... Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no English pronounciation of Kyiv since it's not an English name, and is never used in spoken English. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hm, never, prove that :) As I can see Kharkiv, Dnipro, Odessa, Donetsk also does not have pronunciation guidance, so I guess it is just "try to say it as best as Ukrainians in linked audio clip". Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If anyone tried to say "KYIV" in English, it would probably come out "key-iv" with the "iv" rhyming with "give". And in many cases that "i" would be indistinguishable from how the same speaker would say the "e" in "KIEV".--Khajidha (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The Russian name for the Ukrainian capital is "Киев", which is transliterated into English as "Kiev" and pronounced in both Russian and English as KEY-ev or the sound-alike KEE-yev. On the other hand, the Ukrainian name for the Ukrainian capital is "Київ", which is transliterated into English as "Kyiv" and pronounced in both Ukrainian and English as KIH-yeev.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Київ is not pronounced KIH-yeev in normal English, that is, by someone who doesn't know Ukrainian. It is, as Khajidha states usually pronounced by non-Slavic English speakers as Key-iv or Kyiv (one syllable with the i as in "give" and the "ky" as a palatalized k). --Taivo (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

That's why I think it would be best if the article contained not only Kiev pronunciation but Kyiv as well. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

But that's not a standard. It's just what English speakers would tend to do if called upon to pronounce Kyiv. There is no standard pronunciation of Kyiv in English, any more than there is a standard pronunciation of København or Warszawa in English.

Roman demonstrates this quite nicely when s/he claims that "Kyiv" is pronounced "KIH-yeev" in English. In my dialect such a word would not survive first contact with an actual sentence.

The English-language name of the city is Kiev, pronounced "KEE-ev". If that changes, doubtless a standardised pronunciation of whatever alternative comes into usage will emerge. But at this stage we can only speculate as to what that standardised pronunciation might be. Kahastok talk 20:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Kahastok has brought up imprecise comparisons when s/he mentioned the native names København or Warszawa since both of those capitals, unlike Kyiv, have unique English exonyms — Copenhagen and Warsaw.

A unique English exonym is one that no other language uses, with another perfect example being the Russian capital, Moscow, the native name of which is transliterated into English as Moskva. On the other hand, Prague, the English exonym for the native name of the Czech capital Praha, is not uniquely English since it also the city's French exonym.

Kiev, the frequently used exonym for the Ukrainian capital Kyiv is, in fact, an English transliteration of the Russian name for the Ukrainian capital. Thus, in addition to not being a uniquely English exonym, Kiev is taken directly from the name for the Ukrainian capital used by its neighbor and former administrator.

A Western European comparison might be that had France once been a part of Italy, with the Italian exonym for the French capital, Parigi, being used worldwide, and subsequently became an independent country, announcing that the native name for its capital has always been Paris, while large sectors of the English-speaking world continued to insist that the WP:COMMONNAME for the French capital is still Parigi.

The most appropriate comparisons, however, are the three most-frequently mentioned names of major world cities — Beijing/Peking, Mumbai/Bombay and Kolkata/Calcutta. A lesser known example would be the Moldovan capital Chișinău/Kishinev. It is still referenced as Kishinev in Russia, but its article's main title header in English Wikipedia has been moved to Chișinău (including the diacrtics, which are not generally used in the English-speaking world).

Ultimately, Beijing, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chișinău and Kyiv are not name changes at all. Those are simply the English-speaking world's adjustments of its outdated exonyms.

Finally, it is of no benefit to users of Wikipedia if they are provided with an incorrect pronunciation of Kyiv. Stating that Київ/Kyiv "is not pronounced KIH-yeev in normal English" and to continue that "It is, as Khajidha states usually pronounced by non-Slavic English speakers as Key-iv" may be comparable to stating that "Mumbai is not pronounced moom-BAH-yee in normal English, but is usually pronounced by non-Indian speakers as MAHM-bay" when, in fact, English speakers appear to have no problem pronouncing moom-BAH-yee.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't even know where to start on this list of irrelevancies you have compiled. While the English exonym Kiev is not unique, it IS an English exonym. It hasn't been a transliteration from Russian for about 200 years. Just because a word originates from language X doesn't mean it stays language X for eternity. In your hypothetical French example, I fail to see your point. In that case the English name WOULD remain "Parigi". The change from Peking to Beijing had more to do with currying favor with China than any real linguistic change and Bombay and Calcutta are still rather common. Meanwhile, Chișinău/Kishinev never really had a common English name. It isn't spoken of enough for anyone to bother. Most people probably think it was a wholesale name change and not a translation issue. Finally, Mumbai is most often pronounced by English speakers that I have encountered to sound like "mum buy", as in "Mum, buy me that new Transformers toy, please!" --Khajidha (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On the Name of Kyiv

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I personally think that the page Kiev should be renamed to Kyiv, as it is a Ukrainian city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slappypolandball (talk • contribs) 09:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

But the page is written in English, so we use the English name. --Khajidha (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The English name for the Ukrainian capital is Kyiv.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No, Roman, it's not. We've explained this to you many times already. The transliteration of the Ukrainian name into the Roman alphabet is "Kyiv", but that's not the English name. The English name is the name that is most commonly chosen for use by English speakers, not the Rada. That most common English name for Ukraine's capital is "Kiev". The evidence is overwhelming. Yes, I realize that you are going to make your required comment every time another anon IP from Ukraine raises the flag here, but you will continue to be reminded that your argument is false. --Taivo (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Taivo, it is. I also, in turn, explained this to you many times already. The English name is the transliteration of the Ukrainian name "Kyiv", not the transliteration of the Russian name "Kiev". It is not simply the whim of the Ukrainian legislature that the English-speaking world should use "Kyiv", but the accepted use of "Kyiv" in the same manner as the accepted use of "Beijing" and "Kolkata", rather than "Peking" and "Calcutta". This time, the flag was not raised by "another anon IP from Ukraine", but by a relatively recent (since March) contributor who has chosen a blue-linked user name and has not made any previous Ukraine-related edits. My response was not to the original posting, but to the response to the original posting. That response was incorrect and had to receive a reminder of its incorrectness.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No, Roman. Kiev is not a transliteration, it is the English name. It originated as a transliteration, but 200 years of usage has made it English. I didn't have to think "this Cyrillic letter is the equivalent of this Latin letter", so it wasn't a transliteration.--Khajidha (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No, Khajidha. It is Kyiv which is the English name. Kiev was the English name recently, same as Peking, Bombay, Calcutta or Madras were the English names recently, while Breslau, Danzig or Königsberg were the English names less than a century ago. However, that was then and this is now. All such past names had hundreds of years of usage, but have been replaced by historically revised or modernized forms.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Not arguing that such cannot change, only that it hasn't in this case. Every time the city has come up in the news it has been Kiev, not Kyiv. --Khajidha (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I am positing that it has already changed. Indisputably, Kiev still continues to be widely used, but because of the Internet, the name revision of a capital with major world importance comes with a snowball effect. It would be disingenuous to argue that the name dispute has no political implications, but even on a neutral playing field, the continual browser links to Kyiv, whether from Kyiv Post, FC Dynamo Kyiv, the Lonely Planet Guide to Kyiv or the U.S. State Department, have had their effect.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Kyiv Post and Dynamo Kyiv are irrelevant to usage of the city name by itself. And the only political side to this is the arrogance of the Rada to think they can control outside usage.--Khajidha (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Since English is the world's default language, good faith should be assumed for the legislative body of a country which does not use the Latin alphabet, when it provides guidance as to the transliteration into English the names of its national institutions.

The political side is, of course, the perception of Russian speakers that the Ukrainization of Russian names of Ukrainian cities such as Kiev, Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye or Lugansk into the Ukrainian forms Kyiv, Odesa, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhya and Luhansk are not simply cultural statements, but represent anti-Russian moves. If it were so, it would be a self-defeating attitude on the part of Ukraine since it needs to maintain good relations with its much larger and powerful neighbor.

However, there is nothing inappropriate for a relatively newly independent country in presenting to the English-speaking world its linguistic culture as represented in the explanation of the transliteration of its cities.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

All of which is irrelevant because, as we have explained time and time again, KIEV IS NOT A TRANSLITERATION IT IS THE ASSIMILATED ENGLISH WORD. --Khajidha (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Now we got canvassing [1]. May be we should have Roman Spinner topic-banned, since all of his contribution here is purely disruptive. He has been topic banned in the past.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 10:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

As many times as such explanation is given, it still does not change the fact that "Kiev" is the English transliteration of the Russian name for the Ukrainian capital. It WAS the assimilated English word for many decades, but is not so any longer. The English-language newspapers in every non-English-speaking capital use that capital's English exonym — The Moscow News, The Moscow Times, Warsaw Business Journal, The Warsaw Voice, Prague Daily Monitor, The Prague Post, etc.

If "Kyiv" is not the English exonym for the Ukrainian capital, then Kyiv Post would have to be the world's only newspaper in a non-English-speaking country which does not use the existing English exonym for that country's capital. Thus, it stands to reason that "Kyiv" is, in fact the English exonym.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 10:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, Ymblanter. If Roman is canvassing, then it's time to ban him from this topic. He's obviously refusing to understand the difference between a transliteration and an English name despite having the difference explained to him over and over and over again. He's just being willfully obtuse. --Taivo (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

LOL, Roman. Your willful refusal to understand anything that is being said here would be laughable if you didn't take yourself so seriously. The English language newspapers in every single non-English-speaking country are utterly and completely irrelevant to common English usage, just as is every decree by the Rada and the US State Department. You don't seem to get it. The vast majority of English speakers in English-speaking countries don't use a Russian or Ukrainian transliteration. They use the word "Kiev", which is the English name of Ukraine's capital, just as "Prague" is the English name of the Czech Republic's capital and "Warsaw" is the English name of Poland's capital. It might change in the future, but it's nowhere near being replaced by "Kyiv". --Taivo (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kiev/Kyiv naming issue

For any interested editors, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places)#Kyiv/Kiev regarding use of Kiev or Kyiv for the city where an editor is seeking to overturn the existing consensus that we use the "Kiev" spelling. AusLondonder (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: Please familiarise yourself with WP:CANVAS, specifically "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title". Your battleground mentality on this topic has not been at all helpful. – Joe (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Kiev is wrong, Kyiv is correct

Correct the error - please change the title of the article to Kyiv, instead of Kiev. That is the name of the capital in the Ukrainian language. Kiev - erroneous transcription from the Russian language. A resident of Ukraine. 91.196.121.15 (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

As this website is not written in either Ukrainian or Russian, none of that is relevant. The ENGLISH name for this city is Kiev. --Khajidha (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The English name of the city, based on the dominance of the Russian colonial variant that existed in the past? Now circumstances have changed - the USSR no longer exists, and it would be fair to reflect this change in the title. Only Kyiv. Unfortunately, I cannot fully participate in the discussion in connection with the language barrier. But as a native speaker of the Ukrainian language, I would not want the capital of my country to be pronounced as the occupant country utters. I understand - this is beyond the scope of the discussion, so I stop further arguments. 91.196.121.15 (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Right. You do not speak English very well but find it appropriate to advise native English speakers how they should adjust their language.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm just an interested person. Obviously, the English name has a source in Russian, and this is bad, because it strengthens the perception of Ukraine as a colony of Russia. Therefore, I asked to correct the name. And then - as you decide, I did not edit. 91.196.121.15 (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The English name of the city based on it being the English name of the city! Wikipedia merely reports fact. It is an encyclopaedia. It is not a platform to force change. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Why does this matter to you? I neither know, nor care, nor consider myself to even have the right to care about what Ukrainian calls the capital of my country. You can call it "Gorbleschnapfdar" for all I care. As long as "Gorbleschnapfdar" has no inherently offensive meanings within Ukrainian (that is, that it is not the equivalent of "Shitholia" or "Moronistan"), it is absolutely none of my business. The name of my country's capital city in any other language can only be of academic interest to me, it means no more to me than what the translations of the words "red", "happy", "mountain", or "circle" are. --Khajidha (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Because the English name sounds identical to Russian - absolutely. If it sounded different, there would have been no problem at all. 91.196.121.15 (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The question is much broader and concerns not only the capitals. Any pronunciation of names - should take into account the original language, but not the language of the empire, which is the rule here until 1991. It is clear that this is a matter of tradition, but it is also a political issue. Wikipedia follows tradition, so you will not change the name until Kyiv becomes more common than Kiev. Unfortunately. 91.196.121.15 (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

So what? It's English, not Russian. Lots of words in one language sound like words in other languages (whether they are derived from the same source or not). And as for your assertion that "any pronunciation of names should take into account the original language", that has not been established as a standard and does not match precedent in English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a load of BS, and this discussion is yet another waste of other editors' time. The pronounciation of Kiev in English differs from both the Ukrainian and the Russian pronunciation of their respective names for the city, and is based on English language "rules" for how words are pronounced. So go find another hobby. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

In that case, please forgive me for taking your time and attention. My argument comes down to a simple statement - it is unpleasant to hear the pronunciation of Ukrainian cities in English for native Ukrainian — they sound identical to those in Russian. Instead, Kyiv - Kiev, instead of Lviv - Lvov and so on. This can be understood humanly, but a weak argument for Wikipedia. Therefore - sorry. 91.196.121.15 (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

it is unpleasant to hear the pronunciation of Ukrainian cities in English for native Ukrainian. Well, I am sure that there are many Ukrainians who dislike the spelling and pronunciation as “Kyiv”. Why you do not take into account their opinion? 37.151.19.210 (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me that YOUR argument is the weak one. "A word in one language sounds like a word in another language and not like a word in a third language and this offends me." Not very persuasive.--Khajidha (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

But it's true.A similar opinion exists among many Ukrainians. And precisely because of consonance with the Russian language. This is really important for many people, not for me alone. I did not want to seem harsh or disrespectful. Just bring the argument, whatever it is, that's all. And the names sound, though, in different ways.91.196.121.15 (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Again: "A word in one language sounds like a word in another language and not like a word in a third language and this offends me." This is the level of silliness that your complaints are perceived as having. --Khajidha (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I can hardly explain it. For this you need to be in my place.I think that other, more skillful commentators have already made weighty arguments - and have thoroughly analyzed the causes of this language problem. And if that didn't work out - what can I do? Nothing.The English name did not originate from scratch. He has origins, and they are in history. Historically, the use of Kiev influenced the Russian language. Now circumstances have changed and once the use of the correct option prevails. After all, it is very strange - for most city names there is a direct transliteration from Ukrainian, and only a few are exceptions. 91.196.121.15 (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

1) Why is one language being different from another a "problem"? 2) So it originated from Russian, so what? "Microscope" originated from Greek. Does that mean that a Turk should attempt to have English change that word? 3) Why do you assume that the "correct" option for the English name is the Ukrainian name? Wouldn't the correct option for the English name be the English name, no matter where it is derived from? 4) Why does it matter how other cities are named? Especially since most of those other cities in Ukraine are virtually never spoken of in English. The "exceptions" are the ones that are actually often referred to in English. --Khajidha (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Kyiv, as a city, has always been far from the English-speaking world. Therefore, its name in English appeared in an unnatural way - through the influence of a foreign language for this area and country — Russian. Most of the other city names in English — they came about normally — an English-speaking person came to the city and called him what he heard from the locals. In the case of Kyiv - it is not. In the case of Lviv, this is not so. In the case of Odesa - it is not. The names of these cities arose through the media space, and there dominated the Russian language - the language of the USSR. That's why I say that such names are a mistake. It is too clearly visible where these roots come from. Indeed - those names of cities that were almost never used in English - begin their roots in the Ukrainian language, as the language of the local and the official language of Ukraine. So why should we make an exception for 5-10 other cities? I also read past discussions - I cannot add something to them - if these - reasonable and deeper arguments have not convinced you - then my more so will not. Why does this matter? Because residents of a whole country see a reminder of historical injustice before their eyes every day and wish to correct it. Hence all the discussions and requests for renaming. 91.196.121.15 (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

an English-speaking person came to the city and called him what he heard from the locals. In the case of Kyiv - it is not. According to a 2006 survey, Ukrainian is used at home by 23% of Kievans, 52% use Russian and 24% switch between both. I think, your opinion disproved. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That is a bunch of baloney. It doesn't matter where an English name originates, once it has become part of the English language, it is the English name. Your sweet yearning for a replacement is nothing more than looking in a jewelry store window and wishing that someone will buy you that lovely diamond ring, put it on your finger, and give you a happily ever after storybook life. --Taivo (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

"The names of these cities arose through the media space, and there dominated the Russian language - the language of the USSR. That's why I say that such names are a mistake. It is too clearly visible where these roots come from." - Interesting ... so, basically you're saying there were no English names for Kiev, Lvov, Odessa before 1922, or that those names were completely different? Now I just wonder what time loop brought the name 'Odessa' to all the places in the North America found/named this way during the 19th century ... :-D --213.175.37.10 (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

PS- in my particular accent, the pronunciations of Kiev and Kyiv are pretty hard to distinguish in the first place. --Khajidha (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The pronunciation of Kyiv/Kiev is immaterial in the same manner that the pronunciation of Calcutta/Kolkata is immaterial, as long as the written English forms are Kyiv and Kolkata, respectively.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if this is the official "International Please Rename my Country's Article on Wikipedia" day, as I am seeing similar discussions in multiple places. --Khajidha (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they have launched a campaign "Reuters, write Kyiv, not Kiev".--Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It's funny that I learned about this campaign only from your comment :) 91.196.121.15 (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The Ukrainian editor 91.196.121.15 is correct. The modern English name for the Ukrainian capital is indeed, written as Kyiv, not as Kiev. The capital's English name was once Kiev in the same manner that the Chinese capital's English name was once written as Peking, but is now written as Beijing. There is still, of course, resistance in the English-speaking world to the modernization, but various entities, in particular the U.S. Government, have been dropping the use of the outdated form "Kiev" in favor of the modern form Kyiv.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

And that is, as you very well know, not true. No one outside the U S State Department cares what the U S State Department says or does in matters like that. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That was Roman Spinner's required comment setting himself up as the arbiter of English common names. He's wrong, of course, based on all the evidence that he refuses to recognize in previous discussions. "Kiev" is the English language name for Ukraine's capital and State Department usage matters not one whit. --Taivo (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

True as per truth. U.S. State Department dispatches are read around the world and the U.S. is not alone in this aspect of diplomacy. Here are some samples of Kyiv from the UK government: [2], [3], [4]. Here is the World Travel Guide which starts with a reprint of the outdated-name "Kiev" section and proceeds to the July 2018 "Kyiv" section.

As for "required comments", I am not alone with those. All the usual suspects and arbiters always return to this scene and all refuse to recognize the usual truths.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess you'll never get the message that government dictates, from either side of the Atlantic, will never matter in determining common English usage. --Taivo (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no message to get — the U.S. and UK governments do not put forth "dictates", but simply instruct by example those who are amenable to being instructed. Thus, The Miami Herald, which already uses "Kyiv", or other media outlets which are considering switching to the use of "Kyiv", may submit already-existing governmental use of "Kyiv" as rationalization for their own decision to use the Ukrainian form.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The Miami Herald wasn't "instructed" in anything. It's owner is Ukrainian. That's all there is to it--they were never influenced by government usage, that's your false narrative of the government slowly instructing its people. Until the NY Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, etc. start using Kyiv, then the English name is "Kiev" no matter what the government says. The English form isn't determined by governments, but by the usage of its people. --Taivo (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Alexandra Villoch, the president and publisher of Miami Herald, is not the "owner" of the newspaper, nor is she Ukrainian. Miami Herald is owned by The McClatchy Company, which operates 29 daily newspapers in 14 states and which appointed her to the position of president and publisher. She is answerable to her employers and does not make unilateral decisions on a whim. She is furthermore a native-born American and spent her entire life in the U.S. "Villoch" is a transliteration of a familiar Ukrainian surname (a variation is seen in the name of Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy), but no specific confirmation has been submitted that Alexandra Villoch speaks Ukrainian or is familiar with the Ukrainian language. Nevertheless, it is almost certain that the decision to use "Kyiv", instead of "Kiev", was hers and researchers into Miami Herald editorial columns may even find a specific entry detailing the decision and justifying it on the basis of international governmental use in the English-speaking world, Lonely Planet, World Travel Guide and ever-growing general usage.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 13:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

"ever-growing general usage" has no evidence to back it up and there is equally zero evidence that the government's usage has anything whatsoever to do with it. But this discussion (as is every monthly discussion where you try to push your "government usage" narrative) is pointless. You offer no evidence other than "Lonely Planet" and the Miami Herald and only a successful request for move will have any effect. --Taivo (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no "try to push" on my part whatsoever. I have made very few if any edits in articles relating to Ukraine, Russia, Poland, etc, have not started any of the naming debates and only joined in after you and others have posted your arguments against the use of "Kyiv". Also, I have no verification whether Miami Herald ever published an editorial column justifying its use of "Kyiv", instead of "Kiev", or what arguments, including "government usage", might have been presented in such a putative write-up.

The name revision is, however, being discussed in the media (1.(2000), 2.(2004), 3.(2008), 4.(2014), 5.(2014), 6.(2014), 7.(2014), 8.(2017), 9.(2017), 10.(2017) as well as numerous other examples) and in the similar manner of years that it took for the general acceptance of Beijing, Mumbai and Kolkata, instead of Peking, Bombay and Calcutta, "Kyiv" will be also accepted into general usage. Basically, there are no arguments opposing the use of "Kyiv", other than those in favor of retaining the Peking/Bombay/Calcutta-like traditional form.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

So, there's basically been no change for 18 years but we are supposed to think that the name is magically going to change now? How does that follow? And why do you assume that a name change is inevitable? Cambodia never became Kampuchea in common usage and the country even changed back There was a push a few years ago to change Turin to Torino, but that didn't take off. I see no reason to expect any particular name change proposal to succeed. --Khajidha (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

When a name controversy develops, it is usually, but not always (as in Cracow → Kraków, which was considered an outdated form) for political reasons. Most English exonyms, such as Rome, Florence, Turin, Munich, Prague, Warsaw or Moscow are considered stable as well as uncontroversial and therefore there is no concerted push either in the English-speaking world (or even in the countries in question) for English use of the native forms Roma, Firenze, Torino, München, Praha, Warszawa or Moskva.

On the other hand, it would be, of course, extremely controversial if the English-speaking world were to continue using, for example, German names such as Danzig or Breslau, for Polish cities Gdańsk and Wrocław. The former English exonyms Peking/Bombay/Calcutta carried colonial baggage and, to a certain extent, so does the former (still in use) Russian/English exonym Kiev. The same might have been also true if the English-speaking world had been using the French colonial name Cambodge, but the strictly-English exonym, Cambodia, carries much lighter colonial baggage.

As to "no change for 18 years", the fact that governments in the English-speaking world are using "Kyiv" in their dispatches is already a key victory for proponents of the use of "Kyiv". Guidebooks, Miami Herald, occasional use in other newspapers and magazines — it is a cumulative effect. It will take a few more years for the English-speaking world to accept "Kyiv" in the same manner as it has accepted Beijing, Mumbai or Kolkata, but it will inevitably happen.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You are surely correct that it will happen at some point for most people, and become common English. Wikipedia just follows the most common usage at the time, so it will happen here too. Wikipedia just recently changed to Myanmar over Burma because that's what common usage finally dictated. This was against the US State dept's use of Burma to this day, so that's opposite of the Ukraine situation. The State dept means squat, common usage is everything. That doesn't mean it's some requirement for me of course. When I travel I still call it Burma, Bombay and Calcutta, but it's what I've used all my life. I haven't gone to Beijing, so no issues there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure it will happen. Roma is still Rome in English, and nobody is expecting it to change anytime soon.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Nothing is 100%. But Rome isn't being changed in English print or maps or the press to Roma. Japan isn't being changed to Nippon. Kyiv however is trickling it's way into those places. Just as Burma kept incrementally getting nudged in those place to Myanmar. I think it very likely it will always be pronounced as key-ev, with the y as an I. But that's just the way English works. Everyone I've ever known in the US calls it Kwibek, because we pronounce it as we see it. I go to Vancouver and the "w" disappears. Anyway, Kiev is mostly all I see, but I think it likely to change one day. But to change English because of some foreign gov't mandate, would be ridiculous... that's not how it works. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Dear IP, the proper and only official way to request the renaming of an article is to create an official WP:RM, following all of the instructions on that page. No other discussion or action will lead to anything but endless repetitive arguments, which will not result in any change. Softlavender (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  Actually, in the past, even when creating an official RM, it has lead to nothing except endless repetitive arguments, where the result was no change. So it hasn't mattered at all how it's discussed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter, an WP:RM still the only way to get the article renamed. The last RM was a year ago and was closed after only 20 hours, which did not allow for a full discussion. It is possible that a new RM that was kept open for full participation would garner more support for the change. As more and more English-language publications use "Kyiv", the common transliteration in English is shifting, as it did with Peking, Bombay, and Calcutta, and various other city-name transliterations. The point of an WP:RM is to establish an official consensus, so that these endless repetitive conversations do not recur every month or so. Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Google Ngram. In English-language books, usage of "Kiev" has been steadily declining since 1960, and usage of "Kyiv" has been steadily increasing since 1990 [5]. Google Ngram only goes up to 2008 (an entire decade ago), and one may imagine that give these trajectories, and given the increasing desire of English-language authoritative reliable sources to conform transliterations to official and/or nationalistic standards (as with Peking and other Chinese cities, Bombay, and Calcutta), that "Kyiv" will eventually, and probably quite soon, become the English-language standard. Softlavender (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Is the decline since 1960 due to changing terminology or simply due to lack of discussion of the area? The big peaks seem to mostly line up with major events in Ukrainian history. The gap between the level of usage of the two forms is still quite large and this so-called steady increase in usage of Kyiv since 1990 actually reversed itself for much of the decade of the 2000s--Khajidha (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The increase in "Kyiv" didn't reverse itself from 2000–2008, it simply plateaued, whereas "Kiev" continued its decline. Since the Ngram does not go past 2008, it cannot be said that about English-language books that "The gap between the level of usage of the two forms is still quite large". Softlavender (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

1) Can you not see the dip in the graph after 2000? 2) I was referring to the gap still present on the graph. But basic Google searches show a ratio of 108:33.9 (both in millions), Google books searches show a ratio of 4.4 million:393000, and Google scholar shows a ratio of 727000:460000. That still seems like a pretty huge difference to me. I just don't see how the flaws in a Google search can be severe enough to acount for that better than 3:1 ratio, much less the 11:1 ratio in a books search. --Khajidha (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You are confusing listings from all time periods with the drastic changes over time, which are still on their general trajectories, meaning that eventually Kyiv will overtake Kiev in reliable-source English-language publication usage. For instance on Google Scholar, 2008-2009 Kyiv = 18,300 [6]; Kiev = 41,500: [7]. 2009-2010 Kyiv = 17,000 [8]; Kiev = 24,000 [9]. 2010-2011 Kyiv = 25,700 [10]; Kiev = 44,000 [11]. 2011-2012 Kyiv = 18,600 [12]; Kiev = 24,300 [13]. 2012-2013 Kyiv = 41,600 [14]; Kiev = 49,300 [15]. 2013-2014 Kyiv = 20,100 [16]; Kiev = 25,500 [17]. 2014-2015 Kyiv = 53,300 [18]; Kiev = 46,300 [19]. 2015-2016 Kyiv = 23,000 [20]; Kiev = 20,400 [21]. 2016-2017 Kyiv = 43,000 [22]; Kiev = 39,400 [23]. 2017-2018 Kyiv = 18,300 [24]; Kiev = 17,300 [25]. 2018-present Kyiv = 15,100 [26]; Kiev = 13,500 [27]. Therefore on Google Scholar, Kyiv has exceeded Kiev for the past 5 years. Softlavender (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Google Scholar is hardly a measure of common English usage since it affects only the scholarly, literate population, especially those scholars who have to work and research in Ukraine, and therefore use Kyiv in order to keep good relations with their fellow scholars in Ukraine. Far more relevant is the general news media, who have a much larger readership on a daily basis than anything written and listed in Google Scholar. That's a far more reliable measure of common English usage than what university professors use. And while your "exceeded" may be technically correct, the ratios over that time period are much closer to 50/50 than 60/40 or anything more drastic. "Kyiv" has barely exceeded the usage of "Kiev" over the last five years so that even if we were to consider Google Scholar as the sole measurement of "common English usage", then we would have to conclude that neither one is common, so that status quo would tend to prevail until there has been a definitive shift (and that has not happened with a virtual 50/50 split). --Taivo (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it's a very clear trajectory that matches and extends that of Google Ngram, which only goes up to 2008. It's very clear where the trajectory is headed; the fact that five years in a row Kyiv has exceeded Kiev is a clear indication that, as shown in the Google Ngram, Kyiv is soon going to overtake Kiev as the standard for reliable English-language sources. Softlavender (talk) 01:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

"Very clear trajectory" only among a very limited sample of the English-speaking world. And "trajectory" is not common English usage. Indeed, there's no evidence with Google Scholar that there is a continued trajectory at all. Kyiv caught Kiev so that it's 50/50. There's no evidence that it is continuing on any trajectory other than parity. Until it can be demonstrated, with reliable data (not government, not scholarly, but media and other common sources for English language data) that Kyiv has definitively become the common English name for the capital of Ukraine, then nothing changes in Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The trajectory is not limited; it's from all English-language GoogleBooks and many hundreds of thousands of English-language documents. To me the pattern is very clear for anyone who is viewing it objectively. I'm not going to discuss further because I've made my basic points and provided my basic evidence. Softlavender (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

An official Requested Move has been opened on Talk:Kiev

See discussion here: Talk:Kiev#Requested move 12 October 2018. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note - This was Snow closed on 21 October 2018. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2018

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kiev → Kyiv – Requested by the ministry of foreign affairs of Ukraine... (per this reference) "Kiev" is a russified, colonial name of the original 1500-year old Ukrainian toponym. "Kyiv" is approved by the United Nations. The conferences on Standartization of geographic names. The UN group of experts on Geographical names. And most english media outlets not controlled by the Kremlin. Openlydialectic (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. Most English media outlets are not controlled by the Kremlin. The evidence is still overwhelming that common English usage is still "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons in the 9 previous RMs at Talk:Kiev/naming. Iffy★Chat -- 08:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - This was done a year ago with a snowball keep for Kiev. I see nothing from those discussions to warrant anything different this go around. Kiev is the common English spelling and what a foreign govt wants has no bearing here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose also from me, the nominator apparently did not take the trouble to read previous discussions.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  A pretty new editor (June 2018) so they might not have realized and read all the nominations from before. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  To be honest, they look like a pretty old editor (I once almost blocked them already), but let us complete the RM this time.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  Given all their involvement in various "behind the scenes" parts of Wikipedia, I find it hard to believe that they are a true new editor. They seem like someone returning under a new name. --Khajidha (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per everything mentioned by everyone else. --Khajidha (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, and next editor please WP:SNOW close Suggest a moratorium of 12 months till next attempt. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. As more and more English-language publications use "Kyiv", the common transliteration in English is shifting, as it did with Peking, Bombay, and Calcutta, and various other city-name transliterations. See for instance Google Ngram: In English-language books, usage of "Kiev" has been steadily declining since 1960, and usage of "Kyiv" has been steadily increasing since 1990 [28]. Google Ngram only goes up to 2008 (an entire decade ago), and one may imagine that give these trajectories, and given the increasing desire of English-language authoritative reliable sources to conform transliterations to official and/or nationalistic standards (as with Peking and other Chinese cities, Bombay, and Calcutta), that "Kyiv" will eventually, and probably quite soon, become the English-language standard. See Google Scholar, which shows the continuation of the trend: For instance on Google Scholar, 2008-2009 Kyiv = 18,300 [29]; Kiev = 41,500: [30]. 2009-2010 Kyiv = 17,000 [31]; Kiev = 24,000 [32]. 2010-2011 Kyiv = 25,700 [33]; Kiev = 44,000 [34]. 2011-2012 Kyiv = 18,600 [35]; Kiev = 24,300 [36]. 2012-2013 Kyiv = 41,600 [37]; Kiev = 49,300 [38]. 2013-2014 Kyiv = 20,100 [39]; Kiev = 25,500 [40]. 2014-2015 Kyiv = 53,300 [41]; Kiev = 46,300 [42]. 2015-2016 Kyiv = 23,000 [43]; Kiev = 20,400 [44]. 2016-2017 Kyiv = 43,000 [45]; Kiev = 39,400 [46]. 2017-2018 Kyiv = 18,300 [47]; Kiev = 17,300 [48]. 2018-present Kyiv = 15,100 [49]; Kiev = 13,500 [50]. Therefore on Google Scholar, Kyiv has exceeded Kiev for the past 5 years. That's a very clear trajectory that matches and extends that of Google Ngram, which only goes up to 2008. It's very clear where the trajectory is headed; the fact that five years in a row Kyiv has exceeded Kiev is a clear indication that, as shown in the Google Ngram, Kyiv is soon going to overtake Kiev as the standard for reliable English-language sources. Softlavender (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The only commment I'll make on this is that "shifting" is not "shifted". Wikipedia is reactive once there is clear and unambiguous evidence that common English usage has definitely changed. It is not proactive, pushing an agenda, whether that agenda is laudable or not. "Kyiv" may be becoming more common, but it has not yet supplanted "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 02:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It certainly has on Google Scholar. And it also has on GoogleBooks; for books published in the 21st century, "Kiev" gets 11 results (9 visible) [51], and "Kyiv" gets 14 results (13 visible) [52]. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

In most hits provided by google books, "Kyiv" is a mailing address. I am not sure that is an indication of a shift in English literture.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

And one of the most common problems cited in the literature with Ngram searches is that it skews toward scientific literature, not common English sources: [53]. For example, searching the New York Times from 1 Jan to 12 Oct of this year, there are 111 results for "Kiev" and only 5 results for "Kyiv". --Taivo (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Even if the situation were opposite, NYT does not set the rules of English language. These rules are pretty rigid, and we cannot change it according to present days political situation. Again, the name of the country where Kiev is a capital is Oukraeena (that is more correct phonetic name, but we do not care that in English this name is "Ukraine".--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. I did not choose the New York Times because it was some sacred arbiter of English usage. I simply listed the NYT as a single example of a media source where the use of "Kiev" is overwhelming. I could have listed a dozen major English language news outlets that all use "Kiev" consistently (with "Kyiv" reserved only for "Kyiv Dynamo"). Those dozen media sources probably have more readers per day than the total readership over time of most of the books on Google Scholar or Google Books combined. That's why it's critical to consider mass media as one of the data points in any discussion of a name change. In this case, it's been demonstrated over and over, almost annually, that the majority of the largest news media outlets in the English-speaking world still use "Kiev" overwhelmingly. This includes major media sources on both sides of the Atlantic, such as the Guardian and the Economist. It's not just about how many data points scholars create for the 10 people who read their books, it's about how many millions of readers actually see "Kiev" every day in their reliable sources for news and information. --Taivo (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The NYT usage is even more lopsided than those numbers would seem to indicate. The 5 uses are in only 4 articles and are all references to entities other than the city itself (Kyiv FREE Couch, Kyiv Post (twice), Kyiv Security Forum, Kyiv School of Economics). --Khajidha (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

PS: Only one of those 4 articles references the city itself. And it uses "Kiev" to do so. --Khajidha (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@PaulSiebert: In terms of the 13 visible "Kyiv" GoogleBook results from the 21st C (as opposed to only 9 visible of Kiev for the 21st C), 7 are in the titles of the books, and of the remaining 6 only one is a mailing address (the World Guide to Libraries), so the results are not "a mailing address". Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, mailing addresses are among these hits, which make the search results not an adequate indicator. Anyway, 13 hits is too samll number to draw any conclusion about trends.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding recent scholar results, that is not an indication, because "Kiev" include the hits that refer to some prolific author whose last name is "Kiev". With regard to "Kyiv", most hits are the articles authored by people from this city: their mailing address include this name, hence the hits.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

As other editors have pointed out, the use of Scholar and Books here is misleading. It is picking up false positives such as mailing addresses and very specialist literature, not mainstream English-language sources. AusLondonder (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@PaulSiebert: Do you realize that "'Kiev' include the hits that refer to some prolific author whose last name is 'Kiev'" is a rationale in favor of the use of "Kyiv"? Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I mean. I also note that many "Kyiv" hits are because a modern mailing address is "Kyiv", not "Kiev". That makes both figures not a good indicator.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nomination and per superbly detailed !vote by Softlavender. Kiev → Kyiv is not a name change in the manner of Tsaritsyn → Stalingrad → Volgograd, but rather a transliteration adjustment comparable to Calcutta → Kolkata. Governments in the English-speaking world, guidebooks, online maps — the trajectory is inexorable and inevitable.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It may be inexorable, but it has not happened yet. User:Softlavender's numbers have been cherry-picked and, of course, do not reflect the full range of English-language usage. For example, among the major media markets in the English-speaking world, "Kiev" is still overwhelmingly the usage. And what is the average speaker of English more likely to encounter? A book on the history of St. Sophia's cathedral listed in Google Scholar, or the New York Times? And as was discussed earlier on Talk:Kiev/naming, "Kiev" is not a transliteration. It is still the common English name for Ukraine's capital city, just like "Warsaw" is the common English name for Poland's capital city. --Taivo (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

That is not our goal to predict a trajectory. Our goal is to reflect a current state of things.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Our goal is not to anticipate future trends, but to reflect what majority sources say. In addition, I am not sure local name convention can affect the rules of English language. Thus, in Russian, the name of Russian capital is "Moskva", but its English name is "Moscow", Germans call themselves "Deutsch", but we still are calling them "Germans"; a self-name of Sweden is Sverige, but we use "Sweden". The English name of Kobenhavn is Copenhagen, and we do not care how do Danish people call it. In addition, the old historical name of Ukrainian capital is "Kiev", not "Kyiv", hence the name "Kievan Rus" (not Kyivan Rus. In Belorussian, Kiev is also "Kieu", which means in old Russian (the language all three modern Eastern Slav languages, Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian originated from) the name of this city was "Kiev", and it is not a "russified, colonial name", but a historical name of this city. (Actually, an old historical name of the city was "Kyjev", which is in between a modern Russian "Kijev" and modern Ukrainian "Kyiv" names).

Interestingly, München gives more hits in Google scholar than Munich, but nobody tried to rename the English article about this city. Guys, we are English Wikipedia, and we must obey the rules of English language.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the latest disruptive instalment in a long-running push by special interests and a government to force global English-language usage to change. We don't act at the demand of dodgy Eastern European regimes. The rationale supporting the move is absolutely bogus. Kiev is not the "Russian" name for the city. It is the English name for the city. The Russian name is Киев, transliterated as Kiyev. Nom says that "Kyiv" is used by "most english media outlets not controlled by the Kremlin" - but failed to provide a shred of evidence for either the first assertion about usage or the second paranoid conspiracy theory that English-language media is controlled by the Kremlin. Support a 12-month moratorium on other move requests. AusLondonder (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"The Russian name is Киев, transliterated as Kiyev." The Russian Киев is generally transliterated as "Kiev" (from which the traditional English spelling stems, and the pronunciation is similar), which is why Ukrainians and Ukrainian-speaking peoples do not like the use of "Kiev", which is Russian and does not look or sound like the Ukrainian-language word Київ (Kyiv [ˈkɪjiu̯] ). Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

But regardless of how it is spelled, Kiev or Kyiv, in English it will likely always sound like Kiev when pronounced. I've seen several people spell it Kyiv but they still pronounce it as key-ev. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

No English speaker who isn't also a native speaker of Ukrainian pronounces Київ as [kɪjiu̯]. They pronounce it, at best, as [kiv] or [kiɪv] ("keev" or "kee-iv"). In other words, it's virtually identical in pronunciation to [kiɛv]. --Taivo (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"Kolkata" is virtually identical in pronunciation to "Calcutta" and yet it is written "Kolkata". The pronunciation is immaterial as long as the Ukrainian capital's name is written in English as "Kyiv".    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd hazard a guess that very few native English speakers (at least those without a severe hearing impairment) would consider /koʊlˈkɑːtə/ and /kælˈkʌtə/ to be "virtually identical". Kahastok talk 15:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Once again, the matter of pronunciation is basically immaterial to the subject at hand. It varies widely across the entire English-speaking world with some pronouncing the city's name in the same manner that they had pronounced the familiar "Calcutta" (as in the Black Hole of Calcutta) and others aiming for "Kohl-kah-tah". The key point is the written form, "Kolkata". Some will pronounce "Mumbai" as they pronounced "Bombay" except with an "M", "Mombay" — others will aim for "Moom-bah-yee", but the English written form is "Mumbai". Some will pronounce "Kraków" the same as its outdated form, "Cracow", while others will try for "Krah-koov", but the modern written form is "Kraków" (or "Krakow"). The same with "Kyiv" — some will pronounce it in the same manner as the outdated Russian form, used in the dish Chicken Kiev (analogous to Peking duck), while others will try "Kih-yeev". The key point to emphasize is that the written form is "Kyiv".    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Nobody pronounces Kolkata as Calcutta. If they say Calcutta, they also write Calcutta. And nobody pronounces Mumbai as Mombay, either. They may say "mum-bye", but not "mombay". --Khajidha (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose the English Wikipedia uses the common spelling in English, which is the current title. If usage of a different spelling increases, we can change it then. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Usage of Kiev as recently as today by the Irish Times and the Washington Post, but I assume nom will blithely dismiss these outlets as "Kremlin controlled". Much easier than actually putting forward a credible argument. AusLondonder (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The WP:COMMONNAME is still "Kiev" and the nom doesn't argue that it isn't. "Kiev" is not in this case a Russian name or a Ukrainian name, but the longstanding English name for the city. Kahastok talk 09:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Lets keep the russian name, it is more used and easier to pronounce. Linhart (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. WP:Common name does not apply here because this is the same name. We are talking about different transliterations of the same name. Relevant guideline is this. It tells only that we must "follow English-language usage". Right now there are two different commonly used transliterations in English (4 million for Kyiv in Google news is a lot). However, only one of these common English spellings corresponds to local spelling, and that is Kyiv. Therefore, I would support the renaming. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course WP:COMMONNAME applies here because "Kiev" and "Kyiv" are not the same name in English. Russian and Ukrainian do not count in this discussion. The only thing that counts here is English. And in English, they are different names, spelled differently. "Kiev" is, by far, the most commonly used name and the long-standing name in English (it's not a transliteration despite what some here are claiming). Ukrainians hope that "Kyiv" will replace "Kiev", but it's a very, very slow process at best and may never happen. As of right now, "Kiev" is the English name for Ukraine's capital city. --Taivo (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I think it the same name in Russian, Ukrainian and English. This is just a different transliteration [of the same name], but it is very common (millions hits) and therefore I think can be used here per Wikipedia:Article_titles#Use_English as a common use in English more consistent with "local spelling" My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Kyiv is a transliteration of the Ukrainian name, but Kiev is not a transliteration of anything. Kiev is the accepted English spelling. Therefore, Kyiv and Kiev are not "different transliteration[s] [of the same name]]". And, again, WP:COMMONNAME says that we should use the most commonly used name in reliable English sources, not just a name that is commonly used. A name can be commonly used, but not be the WP:COMMONNAME if it is less commonly used than another. --Khajidha (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. "Kiev" is by far the most common English spelling. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: WP:COMMON name in the English language is "Kiev". The has not been a corresponding deprecation as what happened to "the Ukraine". The Kiev spelling is in common use in English-language sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Pronunciation is irrelevant because this discussion is only about spelling, which has nothing at all to do with pronunciation. Various accepted English spellings are pronounced different ways and we do not change spellings to conforn to ideal pronunciation. "Kiev" is by far the most common English language spelling when discussing this city. Personally, off Wikipedia, I support the Ukrainian government against the Kremlin. And if English language usage actually shifts decisively to "Kyiv, then I will support a move at that time. But that time has not yet arrived. I do not care at all what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine had to say about this matter, and neither should any other editor. They are not the arbiters of English language usage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose We are clearly being trolled by the Ukranian Foreign affairs ministry Kyiv City State Administration. Suggest immediate close. ——SerialNumber54129 14:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:AGF. It should be noted that the letter to the Wikimedia Foundation regarding Kiev → Kyiv requests was not sent by "the Ukranian Foreign affairs ministry", but by the Kyiv City State Administration.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the information, Roman Spinner, I've clarified my remarks as a consequence. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 07:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose "Kiev" is still far more common.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. "The evidence is still overwhelming (which "evidence"?) that common English usage is still "Kiev"." is a common Kremlin propaganda cliche. "english" usage is whatever place is called in a NATIVE language. Which is "Kyiv" in Ukrainian. --User:Did Nychypir (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2018 (CST)

Your assertion is demonstrably false as Moscow, Warsaw, Belgrade, Rome, and many others are not the native forms, but they are the English forms.--Khajidha (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I blocked the user indef per NOTHERE since this was their only edit on the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC) Unblocked per consensus at WP:AN--Ymblanter (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose 'Kiev' is the true English name of the city, while 'Kyiv' is only transliteration of the Ukrainian name. To replace 'Kiev' with 'Kyiv' is like replacing 'Prague' with 'Praha' or 'Lisbon' with 'Lisboa'. Ukrainian government cannot do anything to change this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. No, it's the common English name of the city. It is not Russian. It is a name that has been used in English for countless years, just as Venice, Warsaw and Prague have been used in English for countless years. It is irrelevant what the Ukrainian government wants us to call it, just as it would be irrelevant what the British government wanted to call London. And I don't think media outlets like the BBC are controlled by the Kremlin! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Venice or Prague support their English name and like it. Kyiv/Kiev more or less don't so - unfair comparison. Comments like "fork off stupid Ukrainian nationalists and their arrogant government, I don't care what is my country called in Ukrainian so they must shut up" does not help either. You can be against Kyiv, but use politeness and fair analogies. (Yes, the same for the other side). Surely there is some example of a case where an exception from WP:COMMONNAME was made - as a guidance for Kyiv supporters what angle to chose because IMHO otherwise Kyiv does not stand a chance is this lengthy discussion about Russian name/Ukrainian name/transliterated English name/official English name/common English name.Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff for that quote please? I can't find it on the talk page.

The reason Kyiv "does not stand a chance" in this discussion is because the relevant policies and guidelines (including WP:COMMONNAME) clearly suggest that the article should be at Kiev. This is a perfectly valid conclusion and I don't see why we should be looking for loopholes or wheezes to get around it. Kahastok talk 21:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Not a quote, an example of comment similar to some of those posted here (a ~ compressed compilation ~ if you will). And I say WP:COMMONNAME is (surely) bypassed numerous times no matter what it "clearly suggests". And I guess there were some much less promising cases which made it. I can't be sure, I haven't seen all move requests (closer to none than all :)), but maybe someone would inform us fairly. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

While I am in favor of Kiev, what you said about WP:COMMONNAME is true. At wikipedia, just because something is commonly spelled one way, that doesn't mean consensus will follow. Tennis players are a good example. A player like Nikola Čačić has his name spelled Nikola Cacic in 99% of sources, but wikipedia consensus has banned the 99% spelling because of how he spells it in his home country. So consensus does not always land on the common way to spell something. Fyunck(click) (talk)

Nice example, thanks. So Kyiv is difficult, but Kiëv or Kíév would be easier to push?! :D Chrzwzcz (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

But whether the country likes it or not IS irrelevant. Just as irrelevant as their feelings about any other word in a foreign language. The arrogance is fully on the Ukrainian side in thinking that they can dictate another language's usages. And if exceptions to WP:COMMONNAME can be found, that would be good evidence that those exceptions should be done away with.--Khajidha (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

When you use terms like "dictate", I can hardly think you are impartial and able to tell who's more arrogant :) Guardians of WP:COMMONNAME won't tell us when their precious rule was beaten and act like it is unbeatable ultimate rule which never fell. So Kyiv needs a supporter who's been on enwiki for some time and seen a lot of move requests with unexpected unthinkable results :) to make a case based on precedent.

BTW: I am confident that Dnipropetrovsk Oblast will be renamed on enWiki like "minutes" after is is renamed by Ukrainian government to "Sicheslavsk Oblast". And nobody will say "arrogant Ukrainians won't tell us how to call this oblast in English" or use words like "dictate", Wiki will follow smoothly as Ukrainians "dictate". English can hardly act like it invented "Sicheslavsk Oblast" itself without direct influence of Ukrainian (yes, I personalized languages :)). In other words: of course Ukrainians can and shall make suggestions of "English" names of their cities, oblasts, state. They are allowed and welcome to create official English names of their places. Only Ukrainian government is in charge how their state is registered in UN (and there's several official languages incl. English). Yes yes, of course, Wiki does not necessarily follow official names! I am aware. Another bold conclusion? Kyiv is "official English name", Kiev is "common English name". There - I made it without mentions of transliteration or Russian :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Two differences between Kiev and Dnipropetrovsk Oblast: 1) the oblast is completely changing its name. To the average English speaker there is little to no difference in pronunciation between Kiev and Kyiv, so that change seems like an attempt to regulate spelling. It is much as if the Ukrainians were saying that the English word "fish" should be spelled "fysh". The greater the difference between the two forms of city or country names the more likely they are to change. 2) Kiev is spoken of much, much, much more frequently in English than that oblast.

One slight modification to your official name vs common name point: English, as a whole, does not have "official" terminology. Various organizations with English as an official language have official terminologies. Therefore it would be more accurate to say that "Kyiv is the official English name at the UN" or that "Kyiv is the Ukrainian government's official English form of the city's name". Saying that "Kyiv is the official English name" implies that there is some regulatory body for English as a whole. There isn't. --Khajidha (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

So that "dictate" comments here applies only because of spelling? If they renamed completely (and give new English translation/version), no such comments as "you can't tell me how to call your city" would emerge? Yes, "official" as "official wherever English can make something officially, not language itself". Chrzwzcz (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

"Official wherever English can make something official", like where the New York Times (like many other news organizations) makes it their official policy to use "Kiev"? --Taivo (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

More like: official wherever someone can come and officially state his name and register himself. It would be sport organization or government agencies, then specialized literature... Not on places where several people come together and say "How will WE call him? Is it Nikola Čačić or Nikola Cacic? Let's go with Cacic". Kiev is common English name, Kyiv is official English name (based on my definition here), Kiev is "English newspaper name" :D Chrzwzcz (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

What does "official English name" mean? "Official" implies some formal procedure of approval, which makes usage ov this name mandatory (btw, "mandatory"... by whom?). Which organisation is responsible for official approval of English names?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

"If they renamed completely (and give new English translation/version)"? MAYBE it would be easier to move, but even that isn't certain. As recently as 2012 there were posts at Talk:Gdańsk arguing to move that city to Danzig. The longstanding familiarity of the English name Kiev would still work against the change, just as during the history of the Soviet Union there were still many English sources that resented (if not outright ignored) the renaming of Saint Petersburg to Leningrad. And even the "give new English translation/version" would seem odd. Rename your cities in your language, let us figure out how to modify that for our language. Foreign place names may come into English as strict transliterations (or exact matches for the native form if it uses the Latin alphabet) , modified spellings that are obviously derived from the native form, or completely different forms from the native form. --Khajidha (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It amazes me that English accepts "ń". Dnepropetrovsk was an ordeal too even though it was complete renaming (at least 'different enough') Wiki resented. And I think there were similar comments like here even though it was not strictly just about spelling.Chrzwzcz (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm amazed that that diacritic is used there, too. Dnepropetrovsk changing to Dnipro suffered because it really didn't seem different enough. The "e" to "i" part was trivial and the dropping of "petrovsk" seemed a bit like using "San Fran" instead of "San Francisco". It just seemed like we were being asked to use a very colloquial nickname instead of a more encyclopedic name. --Khajidha (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly. "Dnetropetrovsk" is a Russian name build from the Russian "Dnepr" (Dnieper) an "o", which serves as a linkage in composite words, and "Petrovsk" (derived from the name of a Communist leater, Petrovsky). This is a standard mechanism of construction of composite Russian words, e.g. "Volgograd" is composed of the river's name (Volga, the last "a" removed), an "o" as a linkage, and "grad" (Church Slav equivalent of the Russian "gorod" i.e. "a city"), so literally "Volgograd" means the "City-upon-Volga".

Going back to Dnepropetrovsk, its middle "o" is not a part of the river's name, but the linkage; literally it means "Petrovsk-upon-Dnepr", not "Petrovsk-upon-Dnipro". In Ukrainian, the city's name was "Dnipropetrovsk".

As far as I know, Dnepr/Dnipro had never been a colloquial name of the city, because it coincides with the name of the river, which makes it very impractical. A recent renaming was dictated by purely political reasons, as a part of decommunisation of Ukrainian toponyms. Ironically, they could not return a city its historical name, because it was named after Ekaterina the Great, hence this odd renaming....--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a colloquial name in Ukrainian, I said it looked like a colloquial name in English. What it means in Ukrainian isn't important here. English speakers see this change as "oh, just drop the last half of the name". And such shortenings in English are rarely acceptable usage and never in an encyclopedic context. Quit thinking of these things in the native language and ask yourself how it appears in English. "Why just drop half the name?", "Why change the spelling when it's going to sound the same anyway?". This is the sort of reaction these things get. --Khajidha (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't think about that. You are right, to an English reader, this politically motivated renaming looks like a colloquial shortening, which, by the way, is totally unnatural for Ukrainian to Russian speakers. Nevertheless, an English world should accept this renaming.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hm "It just seemed like we were being asked to use a very colloquial nickname" - looks like in these talks it is not important how things actually are, but how editors perceive them, or what. And it just seem too wrong for me. Study it and then decide, don't tell us what's your personal take on the topic ;) Chrzwzcz (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

These factors also influence the general English usage. The collective "personal take" of English speakers worldwide is what controls English usage. It may all come down to the difference between regulated languages and unregulated ones. How each works seems totally nonsensical to anyone used to the other. --Khajidha (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Surely a lot of science fields have their own regulated official English terminology. Geography seems not be be the case OR common usage and Wiki do not care (or do not consider this article to be from 'scientific' geography field). Which is it or why is it? For example what does current English geography book (textbook) say about Kiev/Kyiv? Chrzwzcz (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that there are "official" practices for fields of science or industries or any other entity in the United States. There aren't. If a particular science journal has a practice and asks me to change "Kiev" to "Kyiv" or vice versa, then I do it for that journal. The next journal might demand the opposite and I would change it to meet their private standards. There is no such thing as a single, unified voice that has any authority whatsoever over the field of "geography". Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME policy was built in the U.S. where there are no national requirements, no industry requirements, just usage. That is all that matters. And we continue to offer evidence that usage has not changed from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" in the English-speaking world. --Taivo (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree with what Taivo said. VERY little in the way of scientific terminology is regulated in English. Also: 1) geography is a "social science" and not a "natural science", the two are treated very differently in English language usage; 2) countries and capitals is a very low level geography concept, it is more like knowing the difference between "brown bear" and "polar bear" rather than Ursus arctos and Ursus maritimus; 3) the most recent introductory college text I have access to right now has Kiev (Kyiv) and covers Ukraine as part of a region known as "the Russian Domain" (ie: former Soviet Union minus the Baltics). It's also 12 years old. I'll look around for more recent editions or images from more recent ones. --Khajidha (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Just did a random image search for "Ukraine map" and checked the first 31 maps on search, these are the results: Kiev: 13, Kyiv: 5, Kyyiv: 1, Kyyiv (Kiev): 1, labelled in Ukrainian (only oblast, not city labelled): 1, not labelled (either partial map or country only): 7, map did not actually contain any Ukrainian territory: 1, could not access due to employer's web filter: 1--Khajidha (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the research. Kyiv is not even geography's winner. I guess pushing it through "correct terminology of scientific field 'geography'" would not be successful anyway, once again science would be beaten by overall usage in whatever source, not strictly geography or politics.Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The names of countries and capitals aren't the scientific part of geography. The science of geography is more about human interactions with the environment and inter-group interactions (country vs country). Place naming is just naming. --Khajidha (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

About regulated scientific terminology: about the most "regulated" parts of science in English are 1) IUPAC naming, 2) SI units and prefixes, and 3) binomial nomenclature. Even there you have to deal with the litre/liter, metre/meter, gram/gramme split in SI and the aluminium/aluminum, caesium/cesium, sulfur/sulphur split in chemistry. --Khajidha (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

OK. What would you describe "Kyiv" to be? Its highest accomplishments in English language, highest rank, title... It is something more than "official UN name for the city" but far less than "common English name for city known as Kiev". Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

In the general run of English usage Kyiv is the "Ukrainian name for Kiev". It is used mostly in those sources that use the "native" names for foreign cities. --Khajidha (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I think it deserves more than that. Basically you are saying it is no more than (senseless) mechanical transliteration. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The closest thing to a geographical name reference in the US is the Board of Geographical Names. As such, it only has authority over US government usage, but it is a good source of information. Here is the search page where you can type either Kiev or Kyiv and get to the same place. "Kiev" is the "conventional name", in other words, the English name, while "Kyiv" is the "approved name", in other words, the name that should be used by the government. But the characterization of "Kyiv" as "the Ukrainian name" is accurate. Whether you think it should be more or not, most English speakers think of "Kyiv" as little more than a mechanical transliteration of Ukrainian for Kiev. --Taivo (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "deserves". You seem to be under the impression that there is some "one true name" for this city that must occur in all languages. Or something like that. Languages differ. Their names for the same thing, or even the same place, don't have to match.There doesn't have to be "reason" why they differ. They just do. And if language A matches language B but not language C, that is no reason for speakers of language C to be upset or try to change language A. --Khajidha (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(ec)The quintessential Hungarian dish is gulyas, but in English it's "goulash". The quintessential Ukrainian soup is borsch, but in English it's "borscht". That's the way the world of language works. The borrowed and naturalized word is rarely identical to the original. Kiev is no different. --Taivo (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you don't understand so the rest of the your comment deals with issues I never raised nor denied. Mechanical transliteration which "fooled" at least some institutions (in English speaking coutries) to start using it, right? "Approved name" seems fair, maybe more like "recommended to use" by the US government. And does the government follow this recommendation? ... Or maybe "alternative English name, not so common though", or is it too much? Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your post here. The "mechanical transliteration" didn't "fool" anyone into using it, individual institutions made their own decisions to use it. ""Approved name" seems fair" Approve by whom? Approved for use by whom? Each user (company, organization, etc) chooses for itself whether to use Kiev or Kyiv or Kyyiv or.... The US government doesn't recommend names for usage by anyone outside of its own agencies. US government agencies are expected to use Kyiv, but there is no expectation by the US government that the US populace as a whole will use it. Nor is there any government recommendation for the US population to use it. --Khajidha (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

There's never been any disagreement here about what the US Government uses--it's been "Kyiv" since shortly after independence. The issue for Wikipedia has always been common English usage, and that's still the BGN "Conventional name", "Kiev". The US Government has never issued "guidance" about English usage in any circumstance. There isn't even a government office that would issue such guidance--oversight of the language simply doesn't exist in the US in any form. --Taivo (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Right in that case Kyiv deserves more credit than that it is just some Ukrainian transliteration, and no one gives a ---. It does not mean it deserves to be the new article name, but it does not deserve treatment it was given here in the discussion by some. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

But that's literally what we've been telling you. Kyiv IS just some Ukrainian transliteration and the English speaking world as a whole DOESN'T give a ----. The usage it gets in English is basically by sources that also use transliterations for other cities. --Khajidha (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. The US government doesn't use "Kyiv" for some greater good or general altruism. They use it because they have to negotiate and maintain good relations with Ukraine. So they are being nice to Ukraine, not trying to change usage among Americans. It is just "the Ukrainian name" in the sense that the US government needs to keep good relations with people who use "the Ukrainian name". --Taivo (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are piling up, first one which started this renaming process - about Kremlin controlled media pushing Kiev :) While US government is controlled/forced(blackmailed ;D) by Ukraine to use Kyiv in order to maintain good relationship. Both make sense even without proof :D Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

A claim that some government controls a large number of independent foreign mass-media look like a conspiracy theory. In contrast, a claim that some government decided to use a certain word as an official name of the city is hardly a conspiracy theory. It is quite plausible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

"some government decided to use a certain word as an official name of the city" - hm, but this was not discussed here, you are missing the "forced to use to have good relationship". And I read that the Russians rigged US elections, so using Kiev in newspaper in comparison... totally plausible :D :D :D JK Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

No conspiracy and no blackmail and no control. The US government, as a matter of its own general policy, uses the city names that other governments ask it to. There was no indication anywhere in Taivo's comment of "force". --Khajidha (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Not "forced" but implied that they would not want use it unless completely necessary. Chrzwzcz (talk)

No, it's more like appeasing the Ukrainians to get them to be more connected to the US than to Russia. --Khajidha (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Plausible, but hardly provable. And without consequences for our decision here. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Strange, so Kiev happens to be coincidence to be similar to Russian, while it can't be coincidence that new/proposed English name would magically be the same as direct mechanical transliteration. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

"Kiev" is being in use for a very long time, so it is not clear if this orthography is a coincidence or not. In contrast, "Kyiv" (I mean a Latin transcription) is relatively new, so it is obvious that it is a transliteration of the Ukrainian word.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

So? Can't common and transliterated name be the same? Are you absolutely certain that those who use it use it because of transliteration rule, not because they simply think that IS new English name for the city? Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

No one claimed that it was a coincidence. What was said was: 1) it was derived from Russian (or possibly an older ancestral language for Ukrainian), 2) its long usage renders it no longer a transliteration, and 3) the similarity (whatever the reason) is not a reason to change English usage. You continue to fail to provide a reason for the change. Without a clear benefit to the English speaking world, there is no reason to change and inertia means it stays the same. --Khajidha (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Many books that I have seen Kyiv in either A) have statements to the effect that city names are consistently Romanized/transliterated or B) demonstrate such by also using Moskva, Roma, Beograd, etc. --Khajidha (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe 2) happened for Kyiv already too, not considered to be transliteration, just plain English name. "continue to fail" - well no rushing. First I wanted to establish what Kyiv already IS. "Foreign name used by US government" seems to be the highest 'honor' you will agree on or maybe we can add a little bit. Far from common name of course. The next is - was it ever good enough to make an exception and go with "Foreign name used by US government" instead of common name? If so, Kyiv has a shot. Otherwise, we wait a year... Kyiv in consistently romanized books is disqualified, of course, and it is important to check this. Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

In English language usage doing something because the government does it doesn't even occur to most people. It seems very strange and would probably be resented. A lot of writing guidelines explicitly say not to write like the government. --Khajidha (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

In that case "Foreign name used by US government" is more like argument against the name, right :) I was looking for the most positive thing about "Kyiv in English" and then compare it with some previous move requests which used such "card". Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of that comes close is the Mount McKinley to Denali move, but that was a change of name within the US. But the US government changing names of things within its own jurisdiction isn't really relevant to this question. --Khajidha (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

That is not even remotely close to that case. Denali is a different name. "Kiev", "Kyiv" and "Kiyev" are three different versions of the same name in three different languages. The fact that there is a direct correspondence between Latin and Cyrillic letters in Kiev - Киев means nothing: when an English speaker says "Kiev", it sounds quite differently from the Russian "Киев".

Actually, Ukrainian nationalists and their supporters show an astonishing narrow-mindedness: the very fact that the name of their capital is written in English differently than the name in their own language is a demonstration that this name has a long history, and that it is connected to a history of the rest of Europe very tightly. That makes Kiev a member of a noble club of other important cities like Prague/Praha, Lissabon/Lisboa, Rome/Roma, Moscow/Moskva, Warsaw/Warszawa etc. The very fact that English resists to any attempt to change Kiev's orthography is an indicator that the name of Ukrainian capital is an important and integral part of European culture. IMO, Ukrainians should be proud of that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

My point there was that it was a change in US government usage that has spread beyond government use. I completely agree with your point about the "same name" in different languages.--Khajidha (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It can work the other way too. The US Gov't uses "Burma", but the common name and wikipedia title has changed to Myanmar. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Describing those who support "Kyiv" and oppose "Kiev" as "Ukrainian nationalists and their supporters [who] show an astonishing narrow-mindedness" completely misunderstands and mischaracterizes the nature of the debate. To further state that "Ukrainians should be proud of that" [their capital is referenced in the English-speaking world by its Russian name at a time when their country is under threat from Russia] displays even further lack of understanding. Examples such as Lisbon/Lisboa (rather than the above Lissabon/Lisboa) are not at all analogous.

If one were searching for analogous city names, it would be the former English exonyms "Breslau", "Danzig" and "Konigsberg" for the Polish cities Wrocław and Gdańsk and the Russian city of Kaliningrad, with a revised form of the above bolded statement, to the effect that "Poles and Russians should be proud of the very fact that English resists to any attempt to change Breslau's, Danzig's and Konigsberg's orthography is an indicator that the names of Polish and Russian cities are an important and integral part of European culture".    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Please, do not twist my words. I wrote that the Ukrainians should be proud of the fact that the English name of their capital shows low volatility, which means this word is deeply connected to the culture and history of Europe. I didn't write they should be proud because it "is referenced in the English-speaking world by its Russian name". And, by the way, a Russian name of the city is "Kiyev", not "Kiev".

By writing "...at a time when their country is under threat from Russia," you bring a totally new perspective to this dispute. You actually claim that (i) the primary reason for renaming is the political one, and, (ii) by doing that, we Wikipedians demonstrate our support to the Ukrainian speaking community of Ukraine. I am not sure this approach is valid. You yourself proposed the analogy with Germans, so let's imagine a situation when Switzerland, that was under threat from Nazi Germany during WWII, decided to ban all German style toponyms, and, in general, to show disrespect to its German speaking compatriots. Would it make that country more protected of more vulnerable? I think, the answer is obvious.

With regard to the rest, these examples are irrelevant: Konogsberg-Kaliningrad was renaming. Danzig became Gdansk and Breslau became Wroclaw as a result of the transfer of those cities from one state to another, and, importantly, after the change of the ethnic composition of its population (they were the cities with a significant German population, which was deported after the WWII). And, by the way, the transfer of those cities from defeated Nazi Germany is an exceptional case in the history of modern Europe, so I doubt it sets a precedent.

In addition, both Gdansk and Wroclaw are old historical names. In contrast, I am not aware of any old documents where the name of Kiev is recorded as "Kyiv", because in Old Russian (a.k.a. Old East Slav) this name sounded differently.

To summarise, your examples are totally artificial and prove nothing. I sincerely don't any reason of this dispute besides the desire of some Ukrainian nationalists to make "Kiev" as much different from Russian "Киев" as possible. Why the Poles are comfortable with "Warsaw", Czechs - with "Prague", Italians - with "Rome", Portuguese - with "Lisbon", Russians - with "Moscow"? There is more difference between Prague and Praha than between Kiev and Kyiv, but Czechs do not care. Why?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

And what about Kiev/Kyiv - transfer from Soviet Union to Ukraine? :) Czechs: Maybe because Prague did not originate from German or Russian influence?! What Czechs didn't like - German name for their coutry (Name of the Czech Republic:) In German, the term applicable to the Czech part of Czechoslovakia used to be Tschechei, comparable to Slowakei for Slovakia. However, the usage of that term began to have negative connotations in connection with the Nazis, who used the term Rest-Tschechei "remaining Czechia" when they annexed the western parts of Czechoslovakia in early 1939. Since the restoration of Czechoslovakia and after the Second World War, the term Tschechien is in use instead, as suggested by the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs as well as German and Austrian linguists. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Ukrainian, along with Russian, was an official language in Ukraine during Soviet times, so I am not sure how could that affect it.

Your analogy with Nazi is irrelevant and a little bit insulting, because it implies Ukrainians were in the same situation in the USSR as Czechs were in Nazi Germany. To demonstrate that that was not the case, let me give you just two examples: both Khruschev and Brezhnev had more dense ties with Ukraine that with Russia (Khruschev, for example, loved a Ukrainian vyshyvanka), and a part of Russian territory (Krimea) was transferred to Ukraine during Soviet times. It is hard to believe that would be possible, had Ukraine and Ukrainians been treated in the same way in the USSR as Czechs were treated in the Third Reich. Therefore, all these analogies are moot and non-productive, especially, taking into account that the name "Prague" is not of German origin (in German, it is "Prag"). --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Snow Oppose per each and every one above - Future requests should be immediately snow closed. –Davey2010^Talk 20:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  Tomorrow will be one week and I agree that it's beginning to look much like a blizzard. After 7 days I would agree to closing this landslide, but we can't make all future requests instant closures. It was a year since the last landslide and a year from now (a reasonable time period) another attempt could be made. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Apologies Fyunck(click) I should've certainly been clearer - I meant requested moves should be done every few years - Whilst once a year is technically fine I feel constantly redoing this once a year is disruptive whereas things tend to change over a year so maybe revisiting this in 2020 is better than 2019, Anyway thanks for your reply, –Davey2010^Talk 21:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Shall we close this? My shoes are getting wet in all this snow. (I would do it myself, but I don't know how.) --Taivo (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion

WP:Common name does not apply here because this is the same name. We are talking about different transliterations of the same name. Relevant guideline is this. It tells only that we must "follow English-language usage". Right now there are two different commonly used transliterations in English (4 million for Kyiv in Google news is a lot). However, only one of these common English spellings corresponds to local spelling, and that is Kyiv. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"Kiev" is not a transliteration any more than "Prague" or "Moscow" are. It is the name of Ukraine's capital in English. And when you start to use raw numbers for the occurrence of "Kyiv" in Google anything, you must find a way to separate "Kyiv Post" and "Kyiv Dynamo", which alone account for a disproportionately large number of hits, as well as city addresses that include "Kyiv" and other proper names that are not part of the actual usage in prose text. This is a classic example that is more common than not: The article about soccer (football) uses "Kiev" throughout dozens of times, but then lists "Kyiv" once as the proper name of a business there and once as the name of "Kyiv Post" (an English-language Ukrainian media outlet). That page should not be counted as a "Kyiv" usage. I don't believe that "4 million hits" in Google News without a corroborating link and a comparison to "Kiev" and a relevant time frame. I seriously doubt that most of that usage is in English. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding--"Kiev" is not a transliteration. That's just a simplistic notion. "Kiev" is the English name on a par with "Warsaw", "Rome", and "Moscow"--they're English, not direct forms of the native name and not transliterations anymore (all of them began as direct forms and/or transliterations, of course, but no English speaker transliterates when he/she writes "Moscow" or "Kiev"). --Taivo (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that the difference between "Kiev" and "Kyiv" is not transliteration? Is not it the same name? I think it is. Yes, it was 4 million hits (Kyiv) versus 8 million hits (for Kiev) in Google news. A disclosure: I am not a native English speaker. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

No, "Kiev" is not a transliteration from Russian. Transliteration from Russian is "Kiyev". Period. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"Kiyev" is a phonetic transcription. "Transliteration" means transformation from one alphabet to another (ignoring phonetics). English "Kiev" looks like transliteration of Russian "Kiev". It is not clear if that is just a coincidence or not, but the English word "Kiev" looks exactly the same as transliterated Russian word.

It is not a reason to change it, however.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Compare: Orekhovo-Zuyevo (Russian: Орехово-Зуево). Dedicated Russian "е" is transmitted to English as "ye". Like the initial "Е" in the name "Yekaterinburg" ("Екатеринбург"). Is this transliteration or transcription? 37.151.19.210 (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

English "Kiev" is a transliteration of an Old Russian (or Old East Slav) "Kiev". The modern Russian word "Kiev", as well as the modern Ukrainian word "Kyiv" are different words that sound differently. The only problem that cause violent nationalistic reaction is that the English word coincides with Russian transliteration. I am pretty sure if the English word were, e.g., "Keev", Ukrainian nationalists had no problems with that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

You are confusing "transliteration" with the establishment of a name in English. Once a name is established in the English language as a name, it ceases to be a transliteration. My first name is "John". A thousand years ago it was a transliteration from Hebrew. My first name is no longer a transliteration when used in English, it is English. The same thing is true of "Moscow". It was once a transliteration from some Slavic language, but it is no longer a transliteration. Several hundred years ago (I don't know how long), the name "Kiev" was transliterated from some local eastern Slavic dialect (depending on how long ago that was it is impossible to accurately call it "Ukrainian", at least "Modern Ukrainian"). Since then the spelling has been solidified as the English name of the city, not a recurring transliteration. Transliteration happens at the moment of use. Once a spelling is solidified in a language, it's not transliteration anymore. "Israel" is not a transliteration in English even though it once was. "Baghdad" and "Cairo" are not transliterations in English even though they once were. No. "Kiev" is not a transliteration, it is the modern name of Ukraine's capital in the English language. "Kyiv" is a transliteration from Modern Ukrainian. While it is being used more often (and 4 million hits versus 8 million hits for "Kiev" is not an argument for a change of this article's name), it is still just a minority of usage versus "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

That may be a little bit off topic, but I doubt "Moscow" had ever been a transliteration. One of the names of the Great Duchy of Moscow (not a self-name) was "Moscovia"/"Moscowia", but it is more a medieval Latin name than a name in any conceivable Slavic language. Anyway, the toponyms in foreign languages have a long and complicated history, and would be senseless to change it in accordance to current political needs.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Are Michael and Mikhail the "same name"? "Kiev" is the longstanding standard English name. It is derived from a transliteration from Russian. However, current writers do not have to sit down and figure out letter by letter what the Cyrillic letters in the Russian name best correspond with in the Latin alphabet every time they use the name, so it is not currently a transliteration. "Kyiv" is the standard transliteration of the Ukrainian name for the city. It has some usage in English writing, but does not seem to have displaced the more established "Kiev" as the most frequent form. --Khajidha (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Khajidha. I agree with everything you say. Yes, "Kiev" is the longstanding standard English name, and it originally came from transliteration of Russian name. Yes, "Kyiv" is the standard transliteration of the Ukrainian name, and it did not displaced "Kiev" (yet) in English usage. Maybe it never will. But I only see that "Kyiv" (a name/a transliteration/whatever) is very commonly used in English and do not see any problem with using a common name that is simply more consistent with "local spelling". If I am in minority here, that's fine. My very best wishes (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

It is A common name, but not THE common name. WP:COMMONNAME is about the MOST common usage in English. Kiev is still more common than Kyiv, though Kyiv is commonly used (that is, it is not a rare occurrence).--Khajidha (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

MVBW appears to be arguing based on a rule for cases where "there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage". It is fanciful to suggest that this applies to Kiev. Kahastok talk 16:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

No, you misunderstood. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The idea that "Kyiv" and "Kiev" is the same word is incorrect. There is a confusion here: there are three different words, "Kyiv" (a Ukrainian word), "Kiev" (an English word), and "Kijev"/"Kiyev" (a Russian word; Russian "Киев" is transliterated as "Kiev"; it is a rare case when a transliterated Russian word coincides with an English word). That is a rare coincidence that a Russian word transliterated from Cyrillic to Latin looks exactly as the English word, although they are two different words that are pronounced differently.

Another example is the word "Ukraine". It is an English word, because Ukrainian word is "Ukraina". Incidentally, the Russian word is exactly the same, "Ukraina". In this case, we also have a situation when two words in two languages (Ukrainian and Russian) coincide, but the third word (an English "Ukraine") is different. Interestingly, that causes no discomfort, and noone proposes to rename the "Ukraine" article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Even though Ukraina (or Ukrainia) would help avoid the "the Ukraine" usage that many Ukrainians also hate. --Khajidha (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"The Ukraine", "The Gambia", "The Hague" - these are the rules of English language. I do not understand why all of that can insult anyone in clear mind.

BTW, "Ukrainia" is an imitation of a Greek name, similar to "Rossia"/"Russia" (literally, "a land of Rus'/Ros"), "Francia" (a land of Franks), "Germania" (a land of Germans), etc. The problem is that, whereas Germans was some ethnic group, no ethnic group called "Ukres" ever existed... --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Re "However, only one of these common English spellings corresponds to local spelling, and that is Kyiv." Actually, a local spelling is "Kiev", because this city is Russian speaking. More importantly, the argument that we have to stick with a local spelling works only when such a word does not exist in English. That looks odd: all names of important European cities have an old history of their usage in foreign languages. That means, their foreign names formed many centuries ago, and reflect a historical tradition. No Russian complains "Moskva" is called "Moscow" in English. Italians are quite comfortable with "Turin (they themselves call it "Torino"). I already provided other examples. In that situation, the idea to rename the article to a non-English "Kyiv" just because an English word "Kiev" coincides with a transcription of a Russian word is totally ridiculous.

Just reiterate: Webster says: "Kiev" is a Ukrainian capital, and "Kyiv" is a Ukrainian version of the word "Kiev". It does not say "Kiev" is a Russian word, so by default it is assumed that "Kiev" is an English word, and "Kyiv" is a Ukrainian word. The Russian name of this city is not mentioned at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the article already puts all dots on i. It says:

"Kiev (/ˈkiːɛf, -ɛv/ KEE-ef, -⁠ev) or Kyiv (Ukrainian: Київ, romanized: Kyiv [ˈkɪjiu̯] ; Russian: Киев, romanized: Kiyev [ˈkʲi(j)ɪf]; Old East Slavic: Кыѥвъ, romanized: Kyjev) is the capital and largest city of Ukraine, located in the north central part of the country on the Dnieper.(...) The early English spelling was derived from Old East Slavic form Kyjev (Cyrillic: Къıєвъ[22])."

It other words, it clearly discriminate four different words:

1. An English word "Kiev"
2. A Ukrainian word "Kyiv"
3. A Russian word "Kiyev", which, by incidence, upon transliteration (which is not a phonetic transcription) gives English "Kiev"
4. An ancient name of the city (which, pronounced as "Kyjev", and which was the source of a modern English word).

Therefore, the rationale of the proposed RM (""Kiev" is a russified, colonial name of the original 1500-year old Ukrainian toponym.") is totally misleading: the English word "Kiev" has no more relation to the modern Russian name than to old historical name of this city. Not only the nominator apparently did not take the trouble to read previous discussions, it seems he even didn't take a trouble to read the article itself.

Incidentally, taking into account that a standard epithet of Kiyjev (but not the modern "Kyiv") in old historical sources is "a mother of all Russian cities" (which is a literal translation of the Greek term "metropolia"), to call Kyjev/Kiev "a colonial name of the old Ukrainian name" is nonsense. In addition, there were no Ukrainian names 1500 years ago, because East Slav languages were separated on northern (Pskov-Novgorod) and southern (the rest of Kievan Rus') dialects. Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian languages formed much later, after the word "Kiev" became an English word.

I propose either to close this RM as wrongly formulated, or to re-formulate and reopen it. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Things like RM's are rarely formulated perfectly and they are often done with bias on the creator. It's no big deal. The basic premise is still do we want Kiev or Kyiv, no matter what the creator said afterwards in the opening, and I think pretty much every editor realized that from looking at the responses. Let it run its course to a likely snowball close so we don't have to see it again for another year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between an imperfect formulation (which is ok) and a wrong and misleading formulation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Peh, it's not the first RM with a premise has more holes than a sieve. Are we really supposed to believe that Kyiv is "the original 1500-year old Ukrainian toponym" when it relies on a romanisation system from 1996? And has it really been adopted by "most english media outlets not controlled by the Kremlin"? Well, the BBC says very clearly in its news style guide: "Kiev is our preference for the capital of Ukraine and not Kyiv or other variations." Oh, so the BBC is Kremlin-controlled now? Really?

Reality is, it doesn't matter how you reformulate the RM, you'd expect it to reach the same result. There's a standard in WP:COMMONNAME that has to be met before we move, and it is clearly not met. Better to just let it run its course, and then let it close with yet another demonstration of the consensus against a move. Kahastok talk 21:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Funnily enough, a small archipelago in the North Atlantic has little of interest to say in how people in Ukraine refer to their settlements; nothing other than the Jupiter-sized arrogance of the British would suggest otherwise. The people of Ukraine are the ultimate authorities on this matter, not the state broadcaster of another country on the opposite side of the continent from them (one wonders, how does RTBF refer to Kyiv? Does it even matter? But of course, the post-colonial arrogance of Western Europeans, the people who enslaved and brutalised half of this planet, will take many centuries to disperse). FWIW, neither the Latin nor the Cyrillic alphabet is "owned" by either the British or the Ukrainians. Perhaps some British Luddites would like to call Istanbul "Constantinople", or refer to Harare as "Salisbury"; some would like to refer to their body weights as XIV stones VII pounds, in line with the practices of centuries gone by; these preferences are commentaries on the egocentrism and pathological backwardness of the British, and little else.

My own opinion is that a self-centred, inward-looking, increasingly isolated from the rest of human civilisation little island on which most people could not tell you what the Cyrillic alphabet is, much less spell "Київ" in it (Cyrillic or transliterated Latin, or whatever else, because most of these people realistically do not care about anything that does not feature in the pages of the Daily Mail), does not have much of interest to say on this topic. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Enough with the trolling attacks on the British. That is unhelpful and uncalled for in a discussion such as this. Goodness gracious. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Too many mistakes in a single post:

1. "a small archipelago in the North Atlantic has little of interest to say...." Actually, this article is written even not in British English, so this "small archipelago" has nothing to do with that. The English speaking world is huge, and, we are speaking on behalf of more than one billion speakers, including a whole educated Europe (continental), India, Canada, USA.

2. "The people of Ukraine are the ultimate authorities on this matter..." Not more that people of Russia are the ultimate authorities in the question of correct spelling of their own capital. "Moscow" has no relation to the real Russian name "Moskva", and poor Russians cannot do anything with that. And, incidentally, they even are not trying, probably because of their poorly developed sense of national pride :).

3. "Constantinople" is not a good example, because by no means it was a colonial name. I would say, "Istanbul" is more colonial.

4. We do not care what Cyrillic alphabet is, and, frankly speaking, we do not care how the city's name is currently pronounced. Historically, the ancestors of modern English speakers started to call this city "Kiev", this word is a part of an English language, in the same sense as the English word "Cologne" is used for the German city of Köln. Why don't poor Germans or Russian complain about this British imperialism?

The answer is simple: if you want to insist on certain change in some language, make this language your own language. For example, German speaking states have a special council that make a coordinated decisions about German language. In contrast, Ukraine is not a part of an English speaking world. And it has no right to dictate us the rule of foreign language. These rules had formed before the Ukrainian nation formed, mostly based on Old Eastern Slavic pronunciation "Kyjev". Please, don't teach us the rules of English languages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

No one is telling Ukrainians how to refer to their settlements. This discussion is about how WE will refer to those settlements. And I find it disgusting that Ukrainians, whose language was subject to attempts to control or eradicate it, would feel that they can control another language.--Khajidha (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

My point about the "small archipelago" was in relation to the BBC (who are, of course, an acknowledged world authority on all things Ukrainian or otherwise) having a definitive say on the appropriate transliteration of Ukrainian Cyrillic into Latin. To assert that the people of Ukraine are not entitled to decide what their country should be called is a degrading and neo-colonial attitude. Perhaps some "enlightened" Westerners could make the decision for them? Rhodesia, Bechuanaland, Nyasaland? Similar problems arise with "Ireland" (which is, absurdly, an English word), and Iran/Persia. The people of Iran requested that their country be referred to in English by that name, although the historical English usage is Persia. This had nothing to do with "dictating", merely respecting the wishes of people from another culture to have their civilisation referred to in a manner of their choice. The arrogance of the Anglophones in thinking that they "know better" than everyone else on the planet is a matter of historical record, which does not need to be described here.

>Not more that [sic!] people of Russia are the ultimate authorities in the question of correct spelling of their own capital

Who, then, is? The people of Uruguay? Do you at least grant non-English-speaking people some modicum of autonomy and respect in how their language is to be respected in our own?

>"Constantinople" is not a good example

"Constantinople" derives from the name of a (non-Greek) Emperor who made it the capital of his carbon-copy paste of the Roman Empire in Asia Minor. I do not understand how this is not colonial.

>We do not care what [sic] Cyrillic alphabet is

This statement alone indicates that you are incompetent to expound on this topic, because you ultimately do not care about cultural differences; a common flaw in Anglophone society. Someone who cannot add two numbers together does not have anything useful to contribute to a discussion on machine learning. The entire point of this discussion is how correctly to transliterate the name of a city, which is properly spelled in the Ukrainian version of the Cyrillic alphabet, into the Latin alphabet. It is beyond absurd to say that you do not care what the Cyrillic alphabet is, since it is the cornerstone of this entire thread. FWIW I do try to pronounce the names of non-Anglophone cities correctly – I don't call Dieppe "Deep", Tampere "Tahm-perr", or Ypres "Wipers", for example. Archon 2488 (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I. People of Russia are ultimate authority in correct spelling of the name of their own capital in Cyrillic. Symmetrically, they, and only they can decide who the worl "London" should be transcribed to Cyrillic. As far as I know, the the word "London" is transcribed in Russian as "Лондон", although a phonetically correct spelling should be "Ландон". Do British people complain? The word "Paris" is transcribed as "Париж", although the correct spelling would be either "Париc", or even "Пари". Do French complain? They would look like idiots if they do, because neither Englishmen nor Frenchmen have a right to set the rules of Ukrainian or Russian spelling. Can you please explain me what kind of logic are you using to advocate a right of non-English speakers to set the rules of English language?

II. You are writing something about "competence", however, your own competence in insufficient to understand teh difference between a transliteration of some foreign word and a spelling of an English word. The English word "Kiev" and a Ukrainian word "Kyiv", which is a transliteration of a Cyrillic "Киiв", are two different words: the former is a part of English vocabulary (in the same way as "London", "Cologne", "Moscow", "Copenhagen"), these words are English words that are English names of world capitals. The French word "Paris" is not a part of Ukrainian dictionary. However, they have a Ukrainian word "Париж" (pronounced in Ukrainian as "Paryzh"), and that is their natural right to call foreign cities as they find convenient. English speakers have absolutely the same right, and noone can deprive us of that right.

Wikipedia has many drawbacks, but it is not censored and not politecorrect place, which is very good. Those who want to play these games are advised to go somewhere else.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Btw, Constantinople was a former Greek colony Bysantium. During those time, "colony" meant "a settlement", and that had no relation to any empire. Later, this territory became a capital of a Greek state, which was later enslaved by Ottomans. In other words, Istanbul is a name given by invaders, who created a a new empire. "Constantinople" was the name given by an autochtonic nation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW, "Istanbul" is just the Turkish abbreviated pronunciation of "ConSTANtonoPLE". It's not a "new name". It's just the Turkish pronunciation of the old name "Constantine's City". --Taivo (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

"having a definitive say on the appropriate transliteration of Ukrainian Cyrillic into Latin" Here you betray your own lack of competence to participate in this discussion, as you completely misunderstand the nature of the word "Kiev". It is NOT a transliteration, it is the established English name. This entire discussion is about ENGLISH usage. If you want to know about English usage, why would you CARE what the Ukrainians or Russians (or Chinese, or Venezuelans, or.....) say. It's not their language. No one is disputing the Ukrainians right to name their own settlements in their own language, but that right does not extend to controlling what other nations call those settlements in other languages. --Khajidha (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The notion that the government of Ukraine or Ukraine's legislature has been attempting to dictate or control how the name of the country's capital should appear in the English-speaking world is a severe mischaracterization.

Almost all Europe-based English exonyms, such as Moscow, Warsaw, Prague, Bucharest, Belgrade or Rome are considered stable as well as uncontroversial and therefore there is no concerted push, either in the English-speaking world or in the countries in question, for English use of the native forms Moskva, Warszawa, Praha, București, Beograd or Roma. The local English-language newspapers, such The Moscow Times, The Warsaw Voice or The Prague Post as well as governmental, media or literary translations into English use the standard English exonyms for their capitals and for any other cities which have English exonyms and there is very little if any negative feedback regarding those decisions.

Ukraine, however, has been an exception in that the English exonyms for its geographical locations (as well as the names of its people) were almost entirely transliterations of those names' Russian forms. The resulting dissatisfaction, as pointed out at Kiev#Name, "...has established the use of the spelling Kyiv in all official documents issued by the governmental authorities since October 1995". The capital's English-language paper, Kyiv Post, which was also established in October 1995, thus began publishing under the exonym that more-closely matches the Ukrainian pronunciation and is not a copy of the Russian pronunciation.

In most non-English-speaking countries, various texts (government press releases, print media, literature, etc) are rendered into English by that country's government or private translators as well as by locally based writers who are native speakers of English or are sufficiently versed in English to write directly. At no point, however, was there a command or an authoritative order issued to entities in the English-speaking world to start using the form "Kyiv". All communications from Ukrainian officials, such as the letter to the Wikimedia Foundation (reproduced at Kiev#Name) have been polite requests to use "Kyiv" and were aimed at bringing "awareness and attention to the proper spelling of various Ukrainian cities, Kyiv in particular". In fact, had such letters of support for the form "Kyiv" not been sent, it could have left the implication that the capital city as well as Ukraine itself have no particular interest whether the English-speaking world uses "Kyiv" or "Kiev".    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 12:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

To even ask for such changes to be made is an inappropriate attempt to control another language. They can phrase it as prettily as they wish, but they don't have the right to ask it in the first place. So English exonyms for Ukrainian places comes from Russian, so what? They are the English exonyms. That is ALL that matters. As for the idea that not sending these letters would "impl[y] that the capital city as well as Ukraine itself have no particular interest whether the English-speaking world uses "Kyiv" or "Kiev"", such lack of interest would be the most rational response they could have. I neither know, nor care, nor even consider myself to have the right to care what Ukrainians call my country or its capital. It is, to put it as bluntly as possible, NONE OF MY GODDAMN BUSINESS. And I would consider it a horrendous waste of my country's time to bother with such and would consider it as making my country look like fools (which my country is easily able to do to itself without worrying about other people's words). --Khajidha (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Re "Ukraine, however, has been an exception in that the English exonyms for its geographical locations (as well as the names of its people) were almost entirely transliterations of those names' Russian forms." Not exactly. Historical translitareations are based no Old Russian ("Old Eastern Slav") name "Kijov", which is intermediate between modern Russian and modern Ukrainian. There had never been "y" in earlier transliteration in the English name of this city, and no "i" in the third position. Therefore, the pretext ("return to the old historical name") is false. In general, in last few years, Ukraine government made a lot of questionable steps, starting from honoring obvious war criminals and the Holocaust perpetrators as national heroes, and ending with forcible transliteration of the names of their Russian speaking compatriots in a Ukrainian manner (one my colleague happens to be from Ukraine, and he explained me that his real name is "Dmitry", but Ukrainian officials forcefully issued him a passport where his name is "Dmytro", and he feels very uncomfortable about that. Can you imagine a situation when you come to DMV and see that your actual name "John Smith" now is written as "Jan Schmidt", and there is no legal way to change it back?). I don't think we should be quickly accommodating all these initiatives.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

See, I would expect (and actually prefer) that my name would be translated to the language of the country I live in. Why shouldn't a French speaking country register any "William West"s in it as "Guillaume Ouest"s? --Khajidha (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

You seem to mix two different situations. (i) When your name is John Smith, and you were born in London, and you moved to Paris to became a permanent resident in France, it might me correct to change spelling of your name if you want to do so (or it might be not; At least, in the US nobody cares about that). (ii) you are a Ukrainian who was born in a bilingual Ukraine, your mother tong is Russian, and all your ancestors speak Russian (which is a typical situation, for example, in Kiev, which is a Russophonic city). However, authorities forcefully transliterate your name in a Ukrainian way, as if you were an immigrant in your own country. Do you see a difference? --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Different situations, but I would expect the same outcome. Assuming that the documents are only available in one language. --Khajidha (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No. Nobody in clear mind will claim "Jan" should be converted to "John" in English: these are two different names. Lev Tolstoy was complaining that some people write the name "Loivin" and "Levin" (in Russian, these names look like "Лёвин" and "Левин", a diacritic symbol over "e" converts is to "io", but it is frequently omitted). As a result, a main hero from the Anna Karenina novel, who was a Russian gentry, became a Jew ("Лёвин" is a Russian name, and "Левин" is Jewish).

Ukrainian alphabet has all needed symbols for a Russian name "Дмитрий", and there are absolutely no reasons for not using this name. Unless you decide to ban certain names. Which is barbarism according to modern standards. No modern state can force their citizen to change their names.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

My wife is a Russian-speaking Ukrainian. With independence, all Russian speakers had to have their names Ukrainianized in official documents: My wife Irina became Iryna, my oldest step-daughter Ekaterina became Kateryna, etc. Yes, a modern state can force their citizens to change their names. But that's irrelevant to whether English speakers have to use Kyiv just because Ukraine wants them to. (My wife changed her name back to Irina when she got her US citizenship.) --Taivo (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, your case is not a good example, because Russian "Ирина" (Irina) sounds like "Iryna" when a Ukrainian speaker is reading it, because Russian "и" ("i") corresponds to Ukrainian "i", and Ukrainian "и" sounds more like "y" (which is the root of the current dispute). It is impossible to tell if the word "Ирина" is Ukrainian or Russian: a Russian speaker will read it as "Irina", a Ukrainian - as "Iryna". If your wife wanted her name to look like Russian, she just had to keep a standard Russian orthography. However, if your wife wanted her name to sound like "Irina" in Ukrainian, she should have to change it to "Ирiна". I personally don't know which variant I would prefer. However, the main point here is that it was up to your wife to decide how should her name look like. A government (if it is a modern democratic government) cannot decide that, especially if your wife was not an immigrant, but a native Ukrainian (or Ukrainian or Russian ethnicity, no matter).

By writing "No modern state can force their citizen to change their names" I meant "if some state consider itself modern, it cannot force its citizens to do so". That is a disrespect towards its citizens.

This question is relevant to the subject of our discussion, because it demonstrates that some initiatives of the current Ukrainian government are questionable, so we don't have to treat them all seriously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Her name was changed in all Ukrainian documents from Ирина to Ірина and that's the way that her passport reads (and, therefore, all her immigration documents to the US). Your long explanation was wrong. And your explanation ignored our daughter's name change from Ekaterina to Kateryna (both transliterated from Cyrillic, of course). Ukraine did, indeed, change the Russian names of its citizens (she was a "charter" Ukrainian citizen) to Ukrainian names. While you may not believe it, that's precisely what they did. I did not make this point in relation to the Kiev/Kyiv discussion, but simply to correct your error in understanding about what a "modern country" can and cannot do with the names of its citizens. --Taivo (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, you are right. I forgot about the first "И". With regard to "Katerina", it is also a local Russian name (remember a famous Schoatakovich's opera "Katerina Izmailova"? The events occur in a South Russian Mtsensk, and all names are Russian, not Ukrainian ones). Actually, the authorities forced you to change your daughter's name against your will. I think even a totalitarian Soviet regime didn't interfere in this aspect of people's private life. That is an additional argument in favor of resisting to any attempts of Ukrainian authorities to impose on us their vision of this subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Politeness when addressing the world community in general and the English-speaking world in particular, should be always noted and taken into account and not mischaracterized with terms such as "diktat" or "demand". There may well have been criticisms when China and India presented their respective preferred English transliterations for Peking, Bombay, Calcutta or Madras and those requests may well have been characterized as demands, but China's and India's requests to revise the centuries-old English exonyms were accepted.

In the same manner, Ukrainian explanatory communiques serve to inform the English-speaking world that their use of "Kyiv" is not a typo and that Ukrainian entities consider "Kyiv", and not "Kiev", to be the English transliteration of their capital's name. The distinction is important since there is a considerable amount of English-language content emanating from Ukraine, primarily articles in the Kyiv Post as well as Ukrainian government announcements and various other English-Ukrainian sources.

FC Dynamo Kyiv, FC Arsenal Kyiv or FC Lokomotyv Kyiv may be presented as other examples, except that the clubs listed in Wikipedia represent an uneven mix of English exonyms and local names — FC Dynamo Moscow, Polonia Warsaw or Red Star Belgrade, but also Okęcie Warszawa, FK Hajduk Beograd or FC Dinamo București.

As for transliterations of Ukrainian given names as well as surnames, one example of a politically-charged requested move may be found at Talk:Oleg Sentsov#Requested move 21 October 2016 in which the entire lengthy discussion was over a single letter — "Oleg" → "Oleh". A currently active discussion is at Talk:Volodymir Hustov#Requested move 29 September 2018.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

India is a part of an English speaking world. Moreover, this country has the world largest English speaking population. Obviously, if they decide to change these names, that is supposed to have some consequences for English in general. By the way a "Bombay -> Mumbai" transition is actually a renaming: the former is a colonial name (probably, derived from Portuguese), the latter is a local name. That has no relationship to the situation we discuss.

With regard to Peking, I don't know if that was a request from Chinese authorities or a natural shift. In any event, the change of transliteration was dictated by a significant difference in pronunciation of "Peking" and "Beijing". In the case of Ukrainian "Kyiv" and Russian "Kiyev", the difference is less than in the difference between Long Island and Yorkshire accents.

With regard to Oleg/h Sentsov, he is a Ukrainian nationalist, and he persistently emphasize his ties with Ukraine. It would be logical and politically meaningful to pronounce and transcribe his name in a Ukrainian way.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"Ukrainian entities consider "Kyiv", and not "Kiev", to be the English transliteration of their capital's name" Which no one is denying. When transliterating from Ukrainian, the resulting city name is Kyiv. But since we are discussing the existing English name, no transliteration is involved. Thus, we use Kiev. Again, and again, and again we keep coming back to this inability to understand that the English name Kiev is not a transliteration. I don't know how to phrase this any clearer to get through to you or to the Ukrainian government. --Khajidha (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Question for nom

Openlydialectic: In your rationale supporting your move request above you suggested that "most english media outlets not controlled by the Kremlin" are using Kyiv instead of Kiev. Given the overwhelming evidence that your assertion is false, and media such as the Washington Post and the Irish Times have not changed their usage, could you provide us with an approved list of media outlets not controlled by the Kremlin? AusLondonder (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Or proof that any of these English media outlets are controlled by the Kremlin.--Khajidha (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hoc est simplicissimus: the ultimate proof that some media is controlled by Kremlin is the usage of the word "Kiev". That is a pretty obvious litmus test. :)--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I apologise. To be entirely honest I was too emotional and now I am embarrassed to even participate in the discussion. I didn't even know there were so many nominations before me. Again, if that helps, I apologise. The current status quo is probably the correct one and I am now okay with closing this nomination if other people that support changing the name to Kyiv agree on closing it too. Openlydialectic (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

When a person openly states their position and provides some rationale, there is absolutely no problem with that. Your rationale was wrong, and your knowledge of the subject was incomplete, however, we all are amateurs here. You gave us a excellent opportunity to read more on that subject and share our opinions. You have absolutely no reason to apologize.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Openlydialectic: I genuinely respect your honesty here in admitting you got in wrong, particularly in the approach you took. We all mess up every so often. No harm done :) AusLondonder (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Way too early a close

6–1 and opened for only 8 hours is way early for a snowball close in my opinion. Some editors wouldn't have ever seen that this rm ever happened. The closer is a non-admin, and it's supposed to be a little more obvious or run a week before they step in. I have informed the closer but there are times they don't edit for days or weeks, and it shouldn't be that long to re-open. This is for fairness as I've also been on the other side of these early closures. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I have re-opened it. The move discussion should run for a full length and only be closed by an administrator. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

You are not right. Any uninvolved user can close it. The only problem is that it was closed prematurely.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. If it runs for 3 days and is 50–2 I can totally understand a snow close. It could very well be a snow close anyway... I just want to make sure all is above board and fair. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

All the same editors oppose the change. Time to bring it to Wiki resolution team as some members use admin rights to own political views

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.86.34 (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You apparently think that the vast majority of English speakers are "the same editors". Convince 300 million American native speakers of English that the capital of Ukraine is "Kyiv" and then you might have something useful to contribute. --Taivo (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This is just a trolling speech with no value to the project of building an encyclopedia. I removed it as such but editor @Constantinehuk: brought it back for some bizarre reason. Oh well. From other posts the same IP doesn't seem to think that Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia were massacred either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what is "helpful" or "bizarre"? People want an open discussion! Constantinehuk (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm a wikipedia editor that used his own judgement to infer trolling had happened by an IP back on Dec 4. I looked at some of their other posts over their only two days of ever posting here too. This looked bogus to me so I removed it. If someone brings it back (which you did) I leave it, but I certainly question why you would bring the topic back. There have been many helpful discussions here to help further the encyclopedia. This topic is not one of them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for a concrete answer. I respectfully disagree. My discussion several months ago was declared "unhelpful" by the same group of people (even though it was merely a question), so I found the original post actual and true. Where and how should we start a discussion about the naming of Kiev/Kyiv - or just ask a question, for that matter? Constantinehuk (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Also what you do is read up above and notice there have been 10 RM's already on the subject...the last one just two months ago that was a snowball close! And that's just formal RM's... it doesn't include other countless trolls and frivolous conversations. Read those and if you have something brand spanking new, impactful, and earth-shattering to bring to the table, start a new topic with that information. Otherwise it's simply a disruptive melody. Do you have a legitimate question that hasn't been asked and answered before? Remember, this is not a blog or a place for casual conversation. Not in the least. It is a page where specific items are discussed that will improve the main article.... with specific remedies. If someone has an actual problem with our administration and their political views, that should be brought up somewhere else like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

My question was new, impactful, and earth-shattering to bring to the table, and still it was "unhelpful". So, again, if this is a page where specific items are discussed that will improve the main article with specific remedies, why can not we discuss it here and now - strictly on the topic? Just because "the last one just two months ago that was a snowball close" (by the same several persons)? How this article differs from millions of others with freedom of speach present? Constantinehuk (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It's unhelpful because it misses the point entirely. English usage is ALL THAT MATTERS. Kyiv is not commonly used in English, therefor we don't use it here. End of story. --Khajidha (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

YOUR, organized group of people, OPINION about English usage is ALL THAT MATTERS. So NO DISCUSSIONS ALLOWED ANYWHERE. Your point is clear, thank you. Constantinehuk (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This someone has already been at ANI for trolling but escaped with a pretty strong warning. They obviously have chosen to continue trolling, which means they will soon be back at ANI.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

"Strong warning" is mostly in your imagination, Ymblanter. Please control yourself. I did not offend anyone, yet. Constantinehuk (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• A) Using Kiev on en-WP, and not Kyiv, has absolutely nothing to do with political views, it's all about what is in common use among native English speakers, and has been in common use for hundreds of years, and B) the more times you bring it up here, and the sillier your accusations get, the less support you will get from native English speakers. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
• Kiev was once in in common use among native English speakers, but is no longer, as witness all the English-language online maps, such as Google or Yahoo, the world's largest publisher of guidebooks, Lonely Planet, occasional newspapers, Miami Herald in particular and various governments, including English-speaking members of the European Union, as well as the U.S. government. At the same time, all these entities continue to use standard English forms for other city names (Belgrade, not Beograd, Bucharest, not București, Florence, not Firenze, etc).    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Those aren't anywhere near the majority of modern English usage. Just look at the international news reports from any English speaking country. Any time there is a story about this city, it is always "Kiev". --Khajidha (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peking renamed to Beijing, but Kiev not to Kyiv, Why?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is the link to the city Beijing (old Peking) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing As we can see, it was renamed because it's right by native pronunciation. I've read a lot of discussion about that common, so Peking was common too. Thus what is the difference? Why one city was renamed another - not? Is it because of politic, national difference, world influence? Please explain to me all the opposite reasons which will not against Beijing renaming. Thank you!

(Kel (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC))

Doesn't matter why. The facts are that English language usage adopted Beijing, but has not adopted Kyiv. End of story. --Khajidha (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

It is because Indian Wiki community is stronger than Ukrainian. And also because TITLEVAR policy is flawed in a way that only nations, where English is the official language are considered. So until Rada makes English official, the Russian name will stay. And you have a special page for this discussion. Linhart (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

What does the Indian Wiki community have to do with anything? Softlavender (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

How is it a "flaw" that English usage is set by English-speaking nations? --Khajidha (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

0,1% of Indians use English as their first language and 12% Indians know English. It is not much different than Ukraine. I was thinking about Calcutta etc. of course. And do not get me wrong, I support Russian name. Linhart (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

None of that has anything to do with Peking or why it was renamed to Beijing. Softlavender (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The Russian name is "Kiyev", not Kiev. Pekin became Beijing because of a transition from an old postal romanization to a new pinyin system, which was adopted for all Chinese words. In other words, there were no special English words for the Chinese capital, English uses the Chinese name, and the only question is which Chinese name should be used (either southern "Pekin" or northern "Beijing"). In contrast, Rome, Prague, Munich, Cologne, Moscow, Kiev, Lisbon and many other names of European capitals are English words (the locals call these cities "Roma", "Praha", "München", "Köln", "Moskva", "Lisboa") , and the governments of non-anglophobic countries have no authority to change English rules.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That is not true, I know Cyrillic, Russian name is Kiev (transliteration on this page is wrong for obvious POV reasons) and there is no special English name for this city. And two thirds of Kiev speak Russian so... And again, this is not the place to discuss this. And yeah, about Peking, one other user already said: "Right at the start, the article says that Beijing was "formerly Romanized as Peking." This is incorrect. Peking (in English) and Pékin (in French) are not Romanizations of Beijing: they are exonyms. As pointed out in the article's Etymology section, this spelling is based on Southern Chinese pronunciation. "Peking" is not and never was a romanization of "Beijing": nobody was or could be that inept! Peking is an exonym in that it was used by English speakers and was not intended to provide an accurate (or even an inaccurate) representation of the name of the Chinese capital as pronounced by its inhabitants." Linhart (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not "Kiev" is a proper transliteration of Russian (it isn't in my experience) is irrelevant. "Kiev" is the most commonly used name of Ukraine's capital in the English language by a very wide margin. 100 years from now it might not be. But today it is. Wikipedia is not an instrument for change, it is a descriptor of what is. And the "is" of the name for Ukraine's capital city in English is "Kiev". That's the end of the story for now. --Taivo (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that transliteration (but not transcription) of the Russian word is "Kiev" is relevant. The transliteration of this Russian word coincides with the English word, which is not a problem per se, but, taking into account current political moods in Ukraine, it becomes important. The fact that the English name of the Ukrainian capital differs from its transliterated Ukrainian name is absolutely normal: I would say, English names of many important European cities differ from their transliteration: (Beograd - Belgrade, Wien - Vienna, Lisboa - Lisbon, Warszawa - Warsaw, Praha - Prague, Moskva - Moscow, Haag - Hague, Roma - Rome, München - Munich, Köln - Cologne, etc.), so the fact that the English name of the Ukrainian capital differs from the transliterated Ukrainian name is more a rule than an exception. What will be an exception is the change of the English word "Kiev" to the Ukrainian (transliterated) "Kyiv". I see no other reason for that but a demonstration of the Wikipedia's support of some very concrete political trend (the anti-Russian position of the current political leadership of Ukraine). However, since Wikipedia is not supposed to take sides in political disputes, I don't find it correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "Peking-Beijing", as I already said, "Peking" is not an exonym; since early transliteration system was based on some southern dialect of Chinese, all names of Chinese cities looked differently until pinyin was adopted. This is a global transition, not just a change of a single name. And yes, the word "Kiev" is an English word (Webster specifies, that Kyiv or Kyyiv are Ukrainian words. Webster doesn't say "Kiev" is a Russian word, it is not more Russian than Moscow). The fact that Russian "Kiyev" transliterated to English as "Kiev" and looks identical to English own wrod "Kiev" is not a reason to consider "Kiev" not an English word. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Taivo, of course it is relevant, if it is included in the first sentence of the article. And I am convinced it is wrong. Or can you find me some reliable sources, that claim the correct transliteration is Kiyev? And I didn't say that Kiev is not an English word per se, I said that English doesn't have its own special word for this city (like Moscow) and is using the Russian transliteration as an English word. And of course, Peking is not a transliteration, it is an exonym. Look at Names of Beijing: "Peking appears in A Description of the Empire of China (1735) by Jean-Baptiste Du Halde. These early spellings may represent pronunciation in the Nanjing dialect, which was used as a lingua franca at this time, or the various other southern Chinese languages used by the traders of the port cities visited by early European traders." There was no transliteration system established in 1735! Pinyin and other stuff are irrelevant, Chinese government cannot decide what is en English name. The same goes for India etc, that is why I said the policies are flawed. Linhart (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Transliterations are like opinions, everyone has one and some are better than others. I could easily show you a formal transliteration system that equates Е/е with 'ye' or 'je' and then you'd show me one that equates it with 'e'. So what? The point isn't about the accuracy of the transliteration. It's the simple fact that "Kiev" is, by a very wide margin, the most common name associated with the capital city of Ukraine. That can be demonstrated (and has been demonstrated) objectively many times on this page. And the issue of "Peking > Beijing" and "Bombay > Mumbai" isn't relevant either under the Wikipedia policy of WP:OTHERSTUFF. There are similarities and differences between "Kiev" and all other cases, so each case must be decided on its own merits. --Taivo (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, here on Wikipedia for Russian localities which do not have an established English name we are using WP:RUS, which would render "Kiyev" for Kiev. But there are of course multiple other options as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

So, by the rules of transliteration used here, "Kiev" is demonstrably not a transliteration of the Russian name. Which destroys the so-called "justification for the move" that these posters have put forward. End of discussion. --Khajidha (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

And the key phrase in User:Ymblanter's post is "which do not have an established English name". There are three localities in Ukraine that have "established English names": Kiev, Odessa, and Chernobyl. --Taivo (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

"Kiev" and "Odessa" were "established English names" until fairly recently. In 1991, however, Ukraine became an independent country and English transliterations of the Russian name forms for its cities were replaced by transliterations of the Ukrainian variants of those same names, "Kyiv" and "Odesa". Here is an example of one of numerous U.S. State Department press releases listing Ukrainian cities, with the names clearly specified as "Kyiv" and "Odesa". The State Department certainly does not use local forms, such as Wien, Roma or Lisboa for other cities which have English exonyms, thus confirming that "Kyiv" and "Odesa" are now those cities' established English exonyms.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me put it in plain words for you: we don't give a sh*te about what the official Ukrainian translitteration of names are, all we care about is what is in common everyday use among native English speakers, so until that changes we'll continue to use Kiev. You're free to use whatever translitteration you want when writing in English, but do not try to tell native English speakers what names/words/terms we're allowed to use, because that is, quite simply, none of your darned business. Capisce? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W has already said what I can only agree with. Neither the Rada nor the US State Department dictates common English usage. --Taivo (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly thirded. --Khajidha (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

No, nyet and ni is my plain-worded reply to "Capisce?" Those who do give a sh*te, and who care enough to make it their darned business in finding an equitable resolution to this intractable dispute, will not settle for such closing sentences as "That's the end of the story for now" and "End of discussion". The discussion will obviously continue for many years to come and, since no one will claim that the U.S. State Department, Lonely Planet, Miami Herald, Google Maps, Yahoo Maps, Bing Maps etc, don't know the common everyday use of the Ukrainian capital's name among native English speakers or that the capital's own English-language daily newspaper doesn't know its city's common everyday English name, then obviously end of topic is at the vanishing point.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

We're not interested in an "equitable resolution", all we care about is abiding by the rules here (see WP:COMMONNAME), so your endless regurgitation of the same faulty arguments is a total waste of time, both your time and our time. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The US State Department uses whatever the country in question asks them to, regardless of common usage. And the fact that the ONLY newspaper you seem able to find that uses Kyiv is the Miami Herald, is the best evidence possible that "Kyiv" is not common usage. The dispute is only "intractable" because the Kyiv supporters don't accept the basic truth that different languages are different. --Khajidha (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

We all waste each other's time regurgitating the same arguments that the other side considers faulty. However, the submission of those faulty arguments invites my replies that countermand those (and other) faulty arguments, such as the one above, at 19:57, 11 December, which sees any potential move of "Kiev" to "Kyiv" as "a demonstration of the Wikipedia's support of some very concrete political trend (the anti-Russian position of the current political leadership of Ukraine)". Since Kyiv is a Ukrainian city as well as the national capital, the revised transliteration cannot be an anti-Russian move unless admission is made that English-speakers have, indeed, been calling the Ukrainian capital by its Russian name and, furthermore, that such a revision would somehow represent English-speakers' hostility towards Russia.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:Truth, and then go find another hobby. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is, really, the only argument that matters. And the answer to WP:COMMONNAME, with solid and (still) overwhelming evidence, is "Kiev". Check back in 10 years. Maybe the evidence will be different by then. (But don't count on it, these discussions started about 10 years ago and, if anything, the evidence has actually become more solid on the "Kiev" side.) --Taivo (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If supporting the proposal that the English name of the Ukrainian capital should be the Ukrainian "Kyiv", rather than the Russian "Kiev", were to be considered as belonging to WP:Fringe, and continued insistence on it were to be considered trolling, then WP:Truth would indeed be the proper place to point. However, unless one posits that the U.S. State Department, Google Maps, et al, are soapboxing trolls on the fringe, then WP:Truth and hobby advice must be returned to sender along with similar sentiments. As for the 10-year period, it has not been much longer than 10 years since the State Department, Google Maps, Lonely Planet, etc, started replacing "Kiev" with "Kyiv". Thus, if anything, momentum is on the side of "Kyiv".    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

LOL. First of all, "Kiev" isn't "Russian", it's English. Russian is Киев. Second, perhaps there is some sort of "momentum" for the common English name of Ukraine's capital to change to "Kyiv", but I've been watching this debate for ten years and any momentum is about the speed of watching a stalactite grow in a cave. Let us know when the Miami Herald overtakes the New York Times and the Washington Post as the most-read newspaper in the English-speaking world. --Taivo (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.