Jump to content

Talk:Kyiv/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Pronunciation ("keev")

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Kyiv is the official name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category: WikiProject Russia articles ?

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

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

Infobox

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

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

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

 —Michael Z. 2019-11-25 16:33 z

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

Transcriptions in the infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Names used in English standards

If this is claimed not to be "discussion to rename this article to Kyiv", then it is closed as not being related to any change to the article per WP:NOTFORUM. However, note that moratorium discussions explicitly discussed the case of people trying to use this page to collect sources in precisely this way, and consensus was clear that such discussions were within the remit of the moratorium. Kahastok talk 18:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

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

In the course of this discussion I had a glance at Wikidata d:Q1899 and its list of names, and followed links to other databases, where I gleaned this list of forms of the name of the city. Many of these are historical or have been used in specific domains. Collected here for reference. —Michael Z. 2019-11-26 20:21 z

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

 —Michael Z. 2019-11-26 20:21 z

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

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

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

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

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

I really don't what are you afraid of. Two people discussing future move request is banned here, is banned on naming subpage, is banned anywhere else out of sight, it is considered gaming the system, and whatnot. And threats with banning the account... This is Wikipedia now, several wiseman, misused wikipedia rules and threats. And only advice - go away if you don't like our reign. Chrzwzcz (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Kyiv not a Kiev

See moratorium notice at top of page. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Please renamed. "Kiev" is russian named, ukrainians are named is Kyiv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Редвіс Сай (talk • contribs) 16:10, 5 January 2020 (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.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Copy editing

As per the 'Protection' discussion above, I've done some initial copy editing, and this has raised the issue of language variants. To start with, it appeared that AmE was the predominant variant and I started changing 'centre' to 'center' but gave up after the first change. It quickly became apparent that there's a complete mishmash of usage, and Oxford serial commas and spellings are also used. The article needs to adopt a standard here, but which? Normally this would be the version with the most usage in the article, but I haven't the time or inclination to analyse this. Anyone got any thoughts on the matter? 31.52.163.22 (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I did just compare center vs centre and it's 8:20. However, there's other usage to take into account, so again, any thoughts? 31.52.163.22 (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of East European topics. Fro Russian topics, we historically keep American (which is just an ad hoc situation, nobody ever discussed that), I do not think there is any convention for Ukrainian topic, if there is no engvar template, add it and stick to any version you like.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! This may sound like a cop-out, but I don't want to be the one who decides, simply because I'm British; so I'm probably biased :) I'll do some more c/e in due course, but I'll leave the AmE/BrE stuff until there's a consensus. Then, if no-one else has done it, I'll implement the necessary changes. I will, however, place any further observations on usage here. 31.52.163.22 (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
FTR, looks like the first edit to make a choice was this one, which used "baptized", followed by this one 40 minutes later, which used "favored". Looking at early post-stub versions, versions like this still appear to favour US spelling. Unless the status quo is consistently in some other variety, MOS:RETAIN would suggest that US spelling should be the default.
(The first IP to switch Kiev to Kyiv was here, by the way.) Kahastok talk 21:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
As with most (if not all) of Wikipedia, whoever wrote each paragraph initially gets to keep their Engvar. We don't really look at how other editors have edited the same article in most cases--at least we don't pay attention to English usage (since it's not visible in most edits unless certain words are included). But once it's embedded in Wikipedia, it usually stays the way it was written unless there is some overwhelming reason to change it. No one really expects Wikipedia to be an exemplar of magnificently well-edited English prose--either British or American or "international". We're too busy worrying about whether the Ancient Macedonians are characterized as "Greek" or "near Greek". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually I have been told countless times that whatever word spelling is used should be consistent throughout the article. You should not have "center" in one sentence and then "centre" in another. That looks sloppy and unprofessional. We may use centre and color throughout as mixed, but we should not use color and colour in the same article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
But it's the original Engvar that tends to be the guidepost. But it often takes some archeology to find that original text. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
But that can change by consensus and usage. Plus other things can play a part as well, as in what English variety does Ukraine use when needed? Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The Ukrainian constitution mandates promoting learning “languages of international communication,” which is taken to mean English, but self-evidently means English of not just one country. Ukraine is closer to and has significant trade with the EU where British-isles varieties are spoken, but also has good relations with the USA and Canada. Globally, large numbers of Ukrainian English-speakers are found in Canada and the USA, and smaller but significant groups in Australia and the UK. —Michael Z. 2020-01-16 20:04 z
The Ukrainian English school curriculum uses British English exclusively (my wife taught English there for years), but there is no national requirement to use British English in other contexts. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the article might be using Canadian English spelling. Just a hunch. —Michael Z. 2020-01-15 22:17 z

In this case I would tend to use British English in the article, just as for the same reasons I would use American English in Taiwan articles as it's what they are taught in schools. But no matter what is used here we need to be consistent with any single word. Centre should be centre throughout, or center throughout... not a mix. That looks sloppy, hokey and unprofessional when we have a switching of single word spellings. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. With the obvious exceptions of direct quotations and proper names. --Khajidha (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Article protection

This article has been semi-protected for over nine years. Time to unprotect, I respectfully suggest. 31.52.160.202 (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

No, the talk page history suggests that disruiption will start immediately after unprotection.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Bullshit! SP only bans IP and new-user editing, and the level of IP contribution at Talk is minimal. This article is just another example of the underhand attempt to make Wikipedia a registered user only application. 31.52.160.202 (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Seems like you found it without too much trouble. What change to the article content are you proposing? DMacks (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm thinking there's an undercurrent to make Wikipedia editable by registered users only. It's a kind of stealth thing: make sure all the important articles are permanently SP'd. Anyway, that aside, I just wanted to copyedit the History section. I've requested unprotection from the original admin, but he's not very active these days, so if there's no response I'll request it as WP:RFPP as well. Thanks for replying. 31.52.160.202 (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
It would be a lot less work for you to simply register and edit. Registering demonstrates to the regulars that your edit is probably more serious and not just a Wednesday morning "I got up on the wrong side of the bed" drive-by hack. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Alternately, again I say "just write exactly what edit you want made". It's obvious that there are several active editors watching this talkpage who are interested in seeing that you get involved. Post right here an improved sentence or paragraph, or work on it in a subpage or draft space and then say "could someone please consider putting this into the article?". It doesn't matter to me whether you're an IP or not. DMacks (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is free to edit. No one is required to register or have their contributions pre-approved by gatekeeper DMacks. I’m looking at Wikipedia:Why create an account? and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and it doesn’t say you need to demonstrate anything a small group of “regulars,” even if they’re behaving like self-appointed owners of this article. —Michael Z. 2020-01-11 20:54 z
There are no "self-appointed owners" here. We had an RfC in which everyone was welcome to participate, and you participated as well. The consensus was not aligned with your opinion, but it still was a consensus. Now please drop the stick and move on.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Was there an RfC that led to the page’s semi-protection? Please provide a link, because I can’t find it. I notice it was semi-protected indefinitely on August 11, 2010, by User:Horologium with a generic comment about “IP editors operating in violation of consensus,” but I can’t find any related discussion at all. It’s been over nine years. WP:Protection policy doesn’t seem to support such a long uninterrupted semi-protection. —Michael Z. 2020-01-11 21:35 z
We know for sure that the first day it gets unprotected we are going to have an invasion of Ukrainian Ips who would not be able to move the article to Kyiv but will replace all instances of Kiev with Kyiv. This happens on a daily basis in many other articles. I made one revert today, and I do not even have many of them on the watchlist. The RfC established that for the time being the English name of the city is Kiev, hence such replacement would be disruptive. We do protect articles against disriptive editing. For example, Jerusalem has been protected since 2007, with a couple of interruptions, and has been protected without interruption since 2010.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, WP:SEMI is fairly explicit in allowing indefinite semi-protection on "pages that are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy". Kahastok talk 22:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
(ec) Nowadays you can do searches of the page histories. Turns out, as of a week ago, the person that Michael is designating as gatekeeper and self-appointed owner of this article had literally never edited either this talk page or this article. I think that before throwing out these kinds of accusations, Michael might do well to consider WP:AGF himself. Kahastok talk 21:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess we could always unprotect editing and see what happens. The admin who unprotects it can just keep a close eye and the day it starts to be spammed by editors it can be easily protected for another nine years. That should appease the IP complaining. But no way would I unprotect the page moving. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

One can always request unprotection at WP:RFPP, I will obviously not act on this request, but as an active RFPP admin my guess is the request is not going to be acted on. I might be wrong though.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) I am the admin who semi-protected the article. I am no longer anywhere near as active as I was when I added the protection, but I do keep an eye on this and a few select articles to which I have added protection, and I am quite positive that this article is not a candidate for unprotection. Like it or not, politics in the United States are a substantial driver of editing patterns on the English Wikipedia, and the current kerfuffle here over Russian or Ukrainian (or both, or neither) influence on US politics has put this article back in the spotlight, and the continuous (not continual, but continuous) vandalism to this article (prior to my protection) does not make me inclined to believe that removing the protection on this article will have any positive impact on Wikipedia. If you feel that this is not reasonable, feel free to request unprotection, or to bring it up on the administrator noticeboards, but I do not think that I will be removing protection, absent a solid consensus that dictates otherwise on one of the administrator noticeboards. Horologium (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

So the first disruption (unsurprisingly, blanket replacement of Kiev with Kyiv) occurred 40 minutes after the article was unprotected.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I saw that....I didn't have much hope anyway, but wanted a least to give people a chance to behave. But if this experiment fails, we can say we tried. Lectonar (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Since it is unprotected anyway, we should probably wait a bit longer than 40 minutes, it might have been an outlier, and in any case we do not know how intensive it would be.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
That's why I used pending-changes....not too much damage, just a tad more work for the regulars me thinks. Lectonar (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay guys, thanks for opening it up, and apologies for various incivilities. Please keep the article open for a while at least. I won't be able to do my copyediting until later this evening (UK time). Cheers, 31.52.163.22 (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Barring the (unlikely) event of a massive intervention to the article, you certainly should be fine today, I do not see it being protected again sooner than several days.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
40 minutes? The Kiev>Kyiv crowd must be sleeping late today. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(outdent) I will be removing this article from my watchlist. User:Lectonar, you're the new gatekeeper/key-master, have fun with this. I'm out. Horologium (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad the protection was removed as it has allowed us to take the high road to see if things have changed. Alas, I don't think it has changed and in the days/weeks ahead I fear that going back to the old protection may be the only recourse. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

So far we have proven that protection is necessary here as there has been an IP changing Kiev to Kyiv at least once per day. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
After 10 days, many editors are spending time undoing many newbie/IPs' repeated changes and few or no acceptable edits by those types of accounts. I'm concluding this 10-day experiment with reduced PC protection as a clear demonstration that semiprotection is stil the appropriate course here. DMacks (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes you have to play in the street just to check that it's still dangerous to play in the street. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Funny how things are. First of all: I have seen not too much disruption during this "trial", at least not enough to warrant semiprotection so soon after taking it down to have the trial (I would have let it run for about a month). Let me quote a litte of our 5 pillars: "Wikipedia is built around/with the principle that anyone can edit it, and it therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors." And some more thoughts: everybody has their own standards for when, and if at all, a page needs protection, and then for how long. There may be different approaches. Just as we have deletionists and keepers, there are people who see a need for protection where there actually is none, and people who won't protect because the disruption is simply not heavy enough. Protection is not about keeping articles stable, a proposal which has been shut down in the past, but protection ought to set in when other methods like blocking (that could have been done with the last IP who edited before semi-protection was implemented again) etc. have failed. I will not take off the semi-protection of course, and you may all shout at me now, but I still think pending changes protection did fine here. Lectonar (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
If the IP edits were scattered throughout the article, fixing this or that, updating this or that, and all made in good faith, that is one thing and would not warrant semi-protection. The IP edits here are uniformly changing the name of the city from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" against consensus and against the moratorium. There's a big difference between the former IP activity and the latter IP activity. I respect your right to disagree, but as someone who has been heavily involved with the Ukrainian pages, I know that one week is plenty of time to see the effects of having no protection. All those "other methods" that you mention have been tried exhaustively here. Those of us who work here know that they are ineffective. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@DMacks:Just so I'm clear on the exact type of protection now in force (and for new editors unfamiliar with our protocols). The article is set to "semi-protection", so no IPs or new editors may edit the article. But it is set for standard "confirmed/auto-confirmed" status, so once you have an account at wikipedia for four days and have made 10 edits elsewhere, you have access to edit this article. Page moving is under the same flag. There is no restriction at all for editing or moving the talk page. Is that the correct interpretation of the protection level you set? If so, it's still a pretty low bar, it just stops quick drive-by attacks. I just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page when discussing protection level and that future editors understand this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

That is a correct statement of the current status. DMacks (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Closed per the moratorium. Kahastok talk 19:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

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

The false assumption is that the “many editors” actions are acceptable and the derided “newbie/IPs” edits are not. At this moment, for me, a Google advanced search for “this exact word or phrase,” narrowed to “English,” with last update “upto a week ago” returns 158 results for Kyiv and 148 for Kiev. The latter is no longer the clear majority usage, while the former fits the five WP:NAMINGCRITERIA at least as well, and arguably better. So of course a bunch of naïfs will try to use the more appropriate name in the text rather than what the old boys’ club is clinging to. —Michael Z. 2020-01-26 16:58 z
Running a Google advanced search for Kiev (excluding Kyiv and chicken) in English over the last week returns 140 hits for me, while searching for Kyiv (excluding Kiev, Post, and Dynamo) under the same conditions returns 133 hits. --Khajidha (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes. When I duplicate your search I get Kyiv 143, Kiev 133. A five to eight percent margin that’s dependent on obscure tweaking, the searcher’s geographic location and nothing else. What is accounted for by each of these exceptions (-Kyiv, -chicken, -Kiev, -Post, -Dynamo) is probably insignificant. Kiev is not a clear majority usage. —Michael Z. 2020-01-26 17:54 z
I would suggest that that's a discussion for after the moratorium expires, so we should terminate this here. Kahastok talk 17:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Of course you would. But this is not “the initiation of any discussion to rename this article to Kyiv.” This is about editing, name usage in the article text, the representation of so-called consensus, and stifling of discussion on this talk page. —Michael Z. 2020-01-26 17:46 z
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2020

closed per moratorium --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

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

please change "Kiev" to "Kyiv" because:

The correct spelling of Ukraine's capital's name is "Kyiv", not "Kiev". The outdated Russian spelling was acceptable when Ukraine was a part of the Russian Empire and later - of the Soviet Union where the official state language was Russian. Now, however, Ukraine is independent and the official language is Ukrainian. Therefore the spelling of the capital's name should be transliterated from Ukrainian, not Russian. It is particularly important since Russia has dominated Ukraine both politically and culturally for centuries, as well as did everything possible to suppress the Ukrainian language. The US officials (as well as the officials in the UK, Canada, and Australia) have long adapted the Ukrainian spelling - "Kyiv" and it is now being used in the government documents and political speeches. 194.28.103.81 (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Closed down instantly per consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Dear IP, this has been discussed and rejected so frequently in the past that there is currently a moratorium on discussing the matter until July 2020. You may return then and discuss the matter, but until then the subject is closed. Softlavender (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2020 (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 not Kiev!!!

Archived, a driveby user--Ymblanter (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Kyiv not Kiev!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baturdem (talk • contribs) 16:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2020

closed per moratorium Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Kyiv and only Kyiv. There shouldn't be Kiev at all as it's not a Russian city. Stop this! Lumenloves (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This cannot be discussed until June. No need to shout, either! ——SN54129 10:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
July, not June. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2020 (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.

Naming standards

Closed per the moratorium. If (as the OP claims) it isn't a name changing discussion then it isn't a discussion on improving the article, so WP:NOTFORUM applies, and closing is still the correct option. Kahastok talk 21:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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

I have a question to fellow Wikipedia experts. I can see a large discussion on new Kyiv name and the arguments is based on popularity of the new name in the press and internet as the reason for name change. And yet if we look at for example Astana article - it was renamed to Nur-Sultan despite Astana was still obviously popular.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Nur-Sultan

Astana (85 million Google results) vs Nur-Sultan (55 million Google results). https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEB_enNZ854NZ854&sxsrf=ALeKk01FklM13hJ6oQfLgIaJ26gtj2yNsg%3A1583697152269&ei=AE1lXrSKEJaf9QOP0IbgBQ&q=Nur-Sultan&oq=Nur-Sultan&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i67l3j0l7.1334.1334..1534...0.2..0.180.180.0j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.NKdKpuZeYeU&ved=0ahUKEwi0isXR04voAhWWT30KHQ-oAVwQ4dUDCAs&uact=5 https://www.google.com/search?q=Astana&rlz=1C1GCEB_enNZ854NZ854&oq=Astana&aqs=chrome..69i57.1822j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Why do we have double standards here?

Note: Its not a request on name change, but more a discussion on the Wikipedia common rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odessit1989 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe because no one has heard of Astana (I haven't) so no one had it on their watchlist to oppose any changes. Kiev is extremely well known. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2020 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

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.

Its population in July 2015 was 2,887,974[1] (though higher estimated numbers have been cited in the press),[12] making Kiev the sixth-most populous city in Europe.

This needs to be changed to seventh-most populous city in Europe. Ianmci (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This needs to be changed to seventh-most populous city in Europe Ianmci (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyiv/Archive_6&oldid=1085459614"