Jump to content

Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

The Library of Congress has officially changed its spelling of Ukrainian capital from Kiev to Kyiv (following BGN and AP Stylebook decision)

Closing this since the discussion ended weeks ago, and Piznajko has been indefinitely topic banned at AE from any page even remotely connected to Ukraine. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:40, 20 October 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.

Since the original discussion on AP style guide's decision in Aug 2019 to switch to Kyiv as well as the discussion on NPR style guide's decision to follow AP Stylebook's recommendation in Sep 2019 to switch to Kyiv have been archived before I had a chance to add additional information about its impact on US media landscape, I'm adding it here:

On Sept. 12 2019 The Library of Congress has officially changed its spelling of Ukrainian capital from Kiev to Kyiv (following BGN and AP Stylebook decision to change their official spelling to Kyiv). This was just recently decided and the decision was announced via the PCC listserv announcement. A more general announcement will be shared in November 2019 once LOC is able to make the actual changes to the database.

@Roman Spinner: per your earlier note that not all major English media styleguides have adopted Kyiv spelling yet, I would remind you that the VPs of Standards of other major English institutions, including IATA, Bloomberg News and ABC (not to be confused with US media ABC News; ABC is Australian Broadcasting Corporation, their version of BBC) have all publicly committed to making a similar decision and will announce it shortly once internal bureaucracy is settled. It is true that there are still around 10 major US/UK English media (which use their own styleguides, rather that using AP Stylebook) styleguides that have not yet updated their guideline to Kyiv, but frankly I don't expect them to take longer than 1-2 months. E.g, your previous comment that it will take ~12 months (e.g. Sep 2020) for the remainder of major US/UK English media styleguides to adopt Kyiv spelling seems somewhat conservative.--Piznajko (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  • A question. Why are you re-litigating the exact same arguments that were in the archived sections? Surely it must be obvious by now, and by reading the archives for the last, what, 10 years? that this article is not ever going to be moved in the near future. Come back when there is actual evidence that Kyiv is - or is even trending - towards the English WP:COMMONNAME. Frankly, this is starting to edge towards disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Black Kite, You probably did not read my comment above carefly: this is is a different discussion about change by Library of Congress and whether that's an authoritative enough event for English language to trigger a name change to this article. Whereas previous 2 discsions were: 1) one on AP Styleguide's decision and 2) one on NPR Styleguide's decision. Also your comment Surely it must be obvious by now, and by reading the archives for the last, what, 10 years? that this article is not ever going to be moved in the near future. is not valid given that situation in previous 10 years is very different to the situation in Feb-Sep 2019 when AP Stylebook announced its decision to change spelling of Kyiv; I would also like to ask @Roman Spinner: - who is one of the few academically knowledgable voices on English WP about Ukraine-related topics - whether he agrees with Black Kite's accusation of disruptive behaviour.--Piznajko (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • As you must surely realise, no stylebook change or any other change even by major providers is going to provoke a change of article title until those changes actually produce a situation in which Kyiv is the COMMONNAME used by reliable English-language sources. You aren't going to change anything here, or now. If the Library of Congress change now produces a difference in those sources in the future, then you come back here when that happens. This is not a difficult concept. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Piznajko, why do you keep looking for some edict from some authority? Have you not listened over the years to the fact that English usage is not subject to any authority? English usage is what it is. If that usage is Kiev, then that is what the page will be named. If English usage is Kyiv, then that is what the page will be named. But, if English usage were to change to something completely different (say, Narnia) then THAT is what the page will be named. Quit asking "is this authority enough to get the page moved?" Start asking "what does actual usage show that the English language calls this city?" Even the most ardent "Kyiv" supporters have not been able to show even equal usage for Kyiv, let alone majority usage. --Khajidha (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Piznajko, you are clearly in denial about the meaning of WP:COMMONNAME, which is not based on dictums from some source that you imagine has dictatorial authority over English usage. Your continual attempts to push your POV, despite continually failing to reach a WP:CONSENSUS is disruptive to the encyclopedia. You have nothing new in terms of English common usage. Until you do, then go away and accept the WP:CONSENSUS until English usage actually changes. And, I might point out, you have no fricking idea whether User:Roman Spinner "is one of the few academically knowledgeable voices" in matters concerning Ukraine or not since most Wikipedia editors don't post their credentials here. You don't know my academic credentials regarding language, toponymy, and Ukraine and I'm not going to share them. Such comments have no place in Wikipedia since Wikipedia decisions are made based on reliable sources and consensus, not upon someone's personal claims of authority. --Taivo (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Piznajko:, I have never made any claims about being an academic and am contributing to Wikipedia without any assertion of either authorship or authority on the subject. As for your question, I do not agree that continued advocacy on this talk page for Wikipedia's acceptance of "Kyiv" over "Kiev" "is starting to edge towards disruptive".
At the top of this page, a list indicates that there were three WP:RM nominations in 2007, two in 2008, one in 2009, none in 2010 and 2011, one in 2012, one in 2013, none in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and, finally, one in October 2017, October 2018 and July 2019. There will be one on or before July 2020 which may ultimately succeed if all the stylebooks are on board by then but, if it still ends with no consensus, there will be another one on or before July 2021, which will have an even greater possibility of succeeding.
There is nothing disruptive about such RMs since this is a dynamic issue discussed throughout the English-speaking world and WP:Consensus may change very quickly depending upon trajectory of intervening circumstances. In the meantime, since discussions centering upon improvement of Wikipedia's Kiev/Kyiv include moving the main title header from "Kiev" to "Kyiv", such discussions also cannot be considered disruptive.
Because suggestions for name improvement initiated at Talk:Kiev/Talk:Kyiv are immediately transferred to this talk subpage and then quickly archived, new suggestions have to restarted on an empty talk page. As with any dynamic topic in the headlines, this topic has new information arriving on a nearly-daily basis and the dissemination of such information for the improvement of the main article is beneficial for users and should not be characterized as being disruptive. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 14:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
"Dynamic" means that the measurements that Wikipedia uses to judge WP:COMMONNAME are changing rapidly. They are not. A style guide changes. But common English usage does not change. Another style guide changes. But common English usage does not change. That is NOT "dynamic". When Google News over the past week shows that "Kiev" is still ten times more common than "Kyiv", there's nothing dynamic. A child can repeat "I want a pony" a thousand times a day, thinking they will get a pony, even though the family lives in a downtown apartment building and a pony is nowhere in the cards. After one of those repetitions, the child might find themselves having to suffer "a time out". --Taivo (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
"There will be one on or before July 2020 which may ultimately succeed if all the stylebooks are on board by then" What the stylebooks say is completely irrelevant to what the title of this article is; unless of course a large number of stylebook changes have pushed the general English-language usage to a majority favouring Kyiv. But the latter is the metric, not the former. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Firstly RE my 'comment on 'credentials' I would like to apologize to Roman Spinner for unintentionally causing other editors to behave WP:non-civilly towards you.[a] Secondly, I agree with @Roman Spinner: that there is nothing disruptive with such discussions, because, as was rightly pointed out by him, suggestions for name improvement initiated at Talk:Kiev/Talk:Kyiv are immediately transferred to this talk subpage and then quickly archived, new suggestions have to restarted on an empty talk page. Like it or not, the main trend-setters of English language on the internet/in print/in speech are English language news organizations, and as such there is indeed a direct causality link between when a large Engilsh-media news organization changes its stylebook to Kyiv and the commonality of Kyiv being used in English in news articles/airport/libraries etc; in other words Black Kite your statement above that Another style guide changes [...] but common English usage does not change is simply not true. When one looks at the previous few months, it is easier to see direct causality between English language Styleguides' change and increase in Kyiv usage in English, see for yourself:
  • BGN announces in June 2019 that Kyiv is now the only correct spelling of Ukraine's capital => numerous geography-related English institutions follow suite & Kyiv usage in English in geography-related matters rises rapidly and is now the predominant way of spelling Ukraine's capital in geography-related instances
  • IATA announces in July 2019 that Kyiv is now the only correct spelling of Ukraine's capital => more than 60 international airports follow suite & Kyiv usage in English in airports-related matters rises rapidly and is now the predominant way of spelling Ukraine's capital in international airports
  • AP Stylebook (and with lesser weight, Guardian styleguide, NPR styleguide, Bloomberg styleguides etc.) announces in Aug 2019 that Kyiv is now the only correct spelling of Ukraine's capital => thousands of English media outlets follow suite & Kyiv usage in English in news-related matters rises rapidly and is now the predominant way of spelling Ukraine's capital in major English language news organizations
  • Library of Congress announces in Sep 2019 that Kyiv is now the only correct spelling of Ukraine's capital => thousands of English library-related institutions follow suite & Kyiv usage in English in libraries-related matters rises rapidly and is now the predominant way of spelling Ukraine's capital in major English libraries
  • and so on, the pattern goes on
p.s. Taivo please stop bringing up manipulative claims Kiev-vs.Kyiv has 10-to-1 lead in being mentioned in English language media - that is simply not true. As was shown to you before, in reality there is a huge spike in the usage of Kyiv over the last few months, driven primarily by the changes Style guide by AP Stylebook (as the English language styleguide used by nearly all English language media worldwide, e.g., close to 99.9 of all English media outlets, but also to a lesser extend by individual Styleguides of other major US/UK news organizations, such as Bloomberg news, The Guardian, NPR news etc.). It is questionable at best to throw claims that Kiev-vs.Kyiv has 10-to-1 lead, which is supposedly achieved through Google search restricted to last 7 days when searching for Trump/Zelensky controversy: that methodology is faulty, and should not be used because Trump/Zelensky controversy is older than 7 days and therefore there shouldn't be a time restriction on the Google search results. Without time restriction, it was already shown in previous discussions search kiev -kyiv trump zelensky ( http://google.com/search?q=kiev -kyiv trump zelensky ) produces 419 000 results, whereas kyiv -kiev trump zelensky ( http://google.com/search?q=kyiv -kiev trump zelensky ) produces 196 000 results , in other words there is only 1 to 2 in favor of Kiev vs. Kyiv (and nothing close to x10 claimed by your above). This shows that English language usage of Kyiv has rapidly skyrocketed in recent months - the same exact search just (with a different ukraine related word-triggers, e.g. insteadof Trump/Zelensky, it coule be Poroshenko/Zelensky a year ago) a year ago would produce something closer to 1:2000 (two thousand).--Piznajko (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
"Taivo please stop bringing up manipulative claims Kiev-vs.Kyiv has 10-to-1 lead in being mentioned in English language media - that is simply not true." User:Piznajko is, as usual, lying about what I have said and the data that I presented. Google News search last week "kiev -kyiv trump zelensky" = 66,500 results. Google News search last week "-kiev kyiv trump zelensky" = 3490 results. Those are the links. Those are the search criteria. This time it's 20 to 1 in favor of "Kiev". Stop trying to deny the clear data that the breaking news stories in English language news sources are still using "Kiev" by an overwhelming margin. So what about searches that don't focus just on news? Google search last week "kiev -kyiv -chicken" = 13,000,000 results. Google search "-kiev kyiv -dynamo" = 7,460,000 results. Still 2 to 1 and overwhelmingly in favor of "Kiev". Stop trying to claim that I'm not telling the truth. User:Roman Spinner may like the continual, pointless disruption that you bring to this naming issue every day that you wake up with a new, meaningless reason why you think we can ignore WP:COMMONNAME, but others here don't appreciate you wasting our time when the result is always the same. Some book may pointlessly declare that "Kyiv" should be used, but millions of English speakers are ignoring them. That's the simple, undeniable fact that you simply fail to open your eyes to. --Taivo (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Piznajko is, as usual, lying about what I have said and the data that I presented - Taivo, I did not lie, I said exactly how it is: by limiting search results to only last 7 days you presented a manipulative 'data point' which uses a google search technique that skews the results and presents a distorted claim. I have told you above - it is misleading to restrict Google search results to a specific period, because Google behaves in an upredictable and unknown manner when you do that. When you add trigger words such as 'trump zelensky' you're already telling google to search for articles about this topic, so there's not need to limit search results to last 7 days. Consequently, when we do not restrict the results to 7 past days, you get (with settings location: USA, language: English): 1) Google search key words kiev -kyiv trump zelensky ( http://google.com/search?q=kiev -kyiv trump zelensky ) produces 352 000 results, whereas key words kyiv -kiev trump zelensky ( http://google.com/search?q=kyiv -kiev trump zelensky ) produces 127 000 results (approx. 1-to-2) ; 2) Google news search: key words kiev -kyiv trump zelensky ( http://google.com/search?q=kiev -kyiv trump zelensky&tbm=nws ) produces 182 000 results, whereas key words kyiv -kiev trump zelensky ( http://google.com/search?q=kyiv -kiev trump zelensky&tbm=nws ) produces 45 500 results (approx. 1-to-4). In other words, both Google and Google news search produce from 1-to-2 to 1-to-4 lead for Kyiv vs. Kiev, which is very different from your manupulative result of '1-to-10' achieved via restricting results to last 7 days.--Piznajko (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Piznajko is now just getting hot because he doesn't like the results of my Google searches. Why use just the last seven days? Because that should precisely show the effects of the AP Style Guide and Library of Congress changes. Piznajko's attempt in this and the last pointless thread he began was to claim that the changes to the AP Style Guide and the Library of Congress would make a difference in the relative frequency of occurrence in the media, especially when reporting breaking news--where local news outlets tend to use articles straight off the AP wire without making changes. My numbers precisely reflect that "Kiev" is still overwhelmingly the preference precisely in those instances where Piznajko predicted we would see the overwhelming shift to "Kyiv". Piznajko, however made a fatal error in his own numbers above. Every single number that Piznajko lists above after his search criteria are mislabeled.
"1) Google search key words kiev -kyiv trump zelensky ( http://google.com/search?q=kiev -kyiv trump zelensky ) produces 352 000 results, whereas key words kyiv -kiev trump zelensky ( http://google.com/search?q=kyiv -kiev trump zelensky ) produces 127 000 results (approx. 1-to-2)."
Wrong! kiev -kyiv trump zelensky produces results for "Kiev", not "Kyiv" as Piznajko claims: 352,000. kyiv -kiev trump zelensky produces results for "Kyiv", not "Kiev": 127,000. Piznajko claims that these searches show "Kyiv" at 2 to 1, but they actually show the exact opposite: "Kiev" at 2 to 1.
"2) Google news search: key words kiev -kyiv trump zelensky ( http://google.com/search?q=kiev -kyiv trump zelensky&tbm=nws ) produces 182 000 results, whereas key words kyiv -kiev trump zelensky ( http://google.com/search?q=kyiv -kiev trump zelensky&tbm=nws ) produces 45 500 results (approx. 1-to-4)."
Wrong! kiev -kyiv trump zelensky produces results for "Kiev", not "Kyiv" as Piznajko claims: 182,000. kyiv -kiev trump zelensky produces results for "Kyiv", not "Kiev": 45,500. Piznajko claims that these searches show "Kyiv" at 4 to 1, but they actually show the exact opposite: "Kiev" at 4 to 1.
"In other words, both Google and Google news search produce from 1-to-2 to 1-to-4 lead for Kyiv vs. Kiev", Absolutely wrong because Piznajko doesn't seem to know how to properly read a Google search. The exact opposite is true of Piznajko's searches: 2 to 1 and 4 to 1 in favor of "Kiev". --Taivo (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
In Piznajko's defense, I think this is just a language issue. "1-to-2 to 1-to-4 lead for Kyiv vs. Kiev" accurately parallels the numbers and the names, but the phrasing is not what would normally be used. When using "lead for" it is expected that the winning side would come first, like so: "2-to-1 to 4-to-1 lead for Kiev vs. Kyiv".--Khajidha (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Since Piznajko is blocked, and the discussion is pointless anyway, may I please suggest that we stop here and get it archived again?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree, but for obvious reasons I shouldn't close this one. --Taivo (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Notes
  1. ^ since it seems I put Roman Spinner in an uncomfortable position where he is being WP:non-civilly questioned by Taivo and is forced to defend his 'credentials' (for that I apologize to you Roman Spinner), I want to clarify few things: 1) indeed every editor has equal authority as to a specific article, per WP:fundamental pillars 2) however, some editors, even though they might not have a 'formal' PhD on the subject, yet have amassed enough academic knowledge (you don't need to be a professor at a university to have academic knowledge) to become subject-matter-expert on the topic. And this is indeed the case with Roman Spinner - through his remarkable 10+ years of editing on a verity of subjects (not just Ukraine-related, but still also including Ukraine-related ones) showed that he is able to improve variety of articles with academic-grade level of rigor (excellent NPOV, excellent sources etc.). In other words, I never claimed that Roman Spinner has a PhD in Ukranian Studies - i don't know that - yet through his excellent academic-grade-level contribution to Ukraine-related articles he has become "one of the few academically knowledgeable voices in English WP in matters concerning Ukraine"--Piznajko (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

---

  • Comment - I was told on my talkpage that I overstepped my bounds by archiving this discussion quickly. It looked like the same argument that was just archived, devolving into the same back and forth attacks, that circles the drain and goes nowhere except in getting editors hot and blocked. I'm undoing it per request, but I still think I'm correct in my assessment. I'll let someone else decide. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    I blocked Piznajko for 48h for disruption here and on Fyunck's talk page. I believe they are on their way to either an indefinite block or a topic-ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2019 (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.

It is time to switch to Kyiv

The community says no, it's not time to switch - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:35, 10 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.

Major western media organizations have recently made the switch, including Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, NPR, BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Globe and Mail, and many others. The Wall Street Journal style book now reads:

"Kyiv - Capital of Ukraine, formerly spelled Kiev. (Retain that spelling only for chicken Kiev.) The Kyiv spelling is in line with the Ukrainian government’s preferred transliteration to English (from the Ukrainian spelling), as opposed to Russia’s (from the Russian spelling), and increasing usage. For now, in articles focused on Kyiv, include a reference to the former spelling: Kyiv, formerly known as Kiev."Wall Street Journa Style & Substance. Vol. 32, No. 9: Kyiv More than 50 major international airports have now also switched to the use of Kyiv on flight arrival and departures lists.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanya3 (talk • contribs)

  • See this summary of searches for news items from the past 30 days. The peaks for Kiev go higher and last longer than the ones for Kyiv. Averaged over the entire 30 day period, it is about 3:1 Kiev:Kyiv. --Khajidha (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course, it's now Kyiv. There are, to be sure, still media holdouts and resisters and there continues to be insistence that the outmoded form "Kiev" is the English name for the Ukrainian capital in the same manner as Munich and Florence are the English names for the native appellations München and Firenze. The difference, that no one can deny, is that no English-language governments, stylebooks, guidebooks, maps, airport boards, etc, are using München, Firenze, etc, and München, Firenze, etc have not expressed any desire for a change of their English exonyms. Kyiv is therefore unique or, if there are comparisons, those would be to Beijing, Mumbai and Kolkata, not to long-established exonyms. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Same old arguments with the very same evidence: Usage is still unambiguously in favor of "Kiev", which is the measure that Wikipedia uses. Government dictates, style guides, requests by the Rada, etc. are nothing more than pleas for usage to change. Until usage actually changes, the English exonym remains "Kiev". For three hundred years, English manuals of grammar, style guides, and English teachers begged the English speaking population to stop splitting infinitives. As we rounded the front end of the 21st century, they finally gave up and recognized that English speakers will continue to regularly and predictably split their infinitives. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Not the "Same old arguments with the very same evidence". After the most recent WP:RM, both the arguments and the evidence have been decisively bolstered by, as quoted by Dekimasu (05:23, 26 October 2019, Talk:Kiev#Requested move 26 October 2019), "A number of global heavyweights have recently adopted the Ukrainian-language derived 'Kyiv' as their official spelling for the country’s capital city, replacing the Russian-rooted 'Kiev.' This trend began with the Associated Press in late August. Since then, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Telegraph, and the BBC have followed suit." To say nothing of the United States Board on Geographic Names, the Library of Congress and others. The remaining WP:RELIABLE SOURCES will undoubtedly follow suit, not wishing to give the appearance of falling behind or dragging their heels and, as the remaining shoes drop, the only ones left using "Kiev" will be unreliable sources. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
You're still pushing that incremental POV that is being rejected. Every week some tiny data point switches from "Kiev" to "Kyiv" and a raft of pro-switch editors act like it's Christmas all over again. Every week. And the big picture never really changes in terms of actual usage. So you cherry pick what you're going to accept as "reliable sources" based on your POV in order to incrementally nudge that number up to less than 2 to 1 in favor of "Kiev". We're still not buying it because the evidence is strongly in favor of "Kiev". That's why we're proposing a 6-month moratorium on considering the name change. We're tired of the weekly begging for "Kyiv". You know what the constant procession of begging builds? Resistance. I'm not unalterably opposed to the name change, but I am sick and tired of the begging with virtually no change in the evidence or the ratio of "Kiev" to "Kyiv" in the English-speaking world. "Oh my God! The Des Moines Register just used 'Kyiv' so it's time to change" is getting old and tiresome. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the latest RM here, you'll see that the overwhelming majority of editors still oppose the move and a significant number are requesting a 6-month moratorium on requests. It's not even close. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Number of opposers is one thing, reasoning is the other, some of them cleraly does not check the situation now and repeat "nothing changed" as before. A lot changed in favour, maybe not enough, but changed. Reason like "Kyiv sounds as a neologism." - hm, nice, and? Can I do "Support, just in spite"? Valid too, right :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
You are over-analyzing the phrase "nothing's changed". The criterion is "majority English usage". As long as that is still "Kiev", it doesn't matter if it's 1000000:1, 1000:1, 10:1, or 2:1. The situation is still the same. That's what "nothing's changed" means. Despite the announcements of these guidelines, the bulk of actual usage is still "Kiev". --Khajidha (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but that reasoning also forgets about one thing - precedent cases where some articles in similar situation (majority against, not really common name...) WERE successfully moved. Precedent is precedent, you allowed such exception once, you have to prepare for more applicants :) Strictly speaking it does not have a chance now but one must remember previous similar cases, be consistent and decide in predictable manner. Do not forget the exceptions, it is a way, a loophole for Kyiv today. Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd have to know what exceptions you are claiming, as I don't see any recent moves that actually parallel this case. (Not to mention that exceptions, by definition, are not precedents).--Khajidha (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Places that aren't well known among English-speakers, and because of that don't really have an established English-language name, have a much greater chance of getting the name changed within reasonable time than places that are well known among English-speakers, such as Kiev. And don't compare Kiev to Bombay/Mumbai, because that name was changed before Wikipedia was created (but the article here still wasn't moved until ~15 years after the name was changed IIRC). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The rule allows exceptions, the rule allowed exceptions in past, so there's no "it is not common hence it is definitelly lost case". Exceptions are possible and we should only recall those uncommon names which made it. Not necesarily Mumbai but other, more similar cases and not necesarily recent-recent. Towns, states, anything. English speaking country or not, not an issue nowadays. Non-English countries do affect English whether you like it or not and protect your language all you want, Ukrainians were partly successful with styleguides and we'll see fruits shortly so maybe hunt for exceptions are useless. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The rule may allow exceptions, but not when WP:CONSENSUS is solidly against moving the article at this time. That's your problem with trying to move the article every week--you build up resistance against you because of your disruption and no one cares about your arguments anymore. They just see another Ukrainian national trying to force the Rada's will on Wikipedia and the "oppose" votes become automatic because they are sick and tired of your begging. There has already been one editor permanently topic-banned for persistent begging to move this article. About half of the editors here have already expressed support for a 6-month moratorium on requests for move here. Have there been a few instances of pages being moved early? Probably, but WP:OTHERSTUFF always applies--it doesn't matter what happened in other articles, if you can't build a consensus here then there's not going to be a move. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, but the comments clearly shows noone is aware of exceptions. Everybody just "it's not common, done" or "I don't like it, done" or "Again? No! Moratorium!!!". I am not Ukrainian. Nor am I Ukrainian nationalist. Nor do I beg. I haven't started any move requests yet, I just express sympathy for supporters in cases where false "definitive" reasons appear against the move like no exceptions allowed. It is just way more difficult to succeed and everybody just want to forget (or not aware) that early moves happened in the past so it is not unthinkable. But maybe not worth it. I'd like to read informed reasons like "Oppose, Kyiv is not common and there is no ground for exceptions because in most similar case there was this-and-this but Kyiv does not have such-thing". Frequent move requests are bad, I know. Supporters do it whenever they think they found the right reason and field where Kyiv already dominates (now it was Google Scholar). And clearly many opposers did not read it, because they did not comment new evidence, just stamp it with "oppose like always". Chrzwzcz (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know that you are not a Ukrainian nationalist because your name contains Polish spelling conventions, but I was using "you" in the peculiar English sense of "people on your side" rather than "you" specifically. My apologies for the confusion. But thoughtful response to the latest data point shift becomes less and less likely the more times in a month that the topic is brought up (here, at Talk:Kiev, and at Talk:Ukraine). Editors are going to say no because they are tired of the constant parade of minutiae without presenting arguments. Some of this data isn't actually new. Google Scholar, because it's the realm of scholars, has been using "Kyiv" for a very long time. I remember talking about how that's not indicative of common English usage several years ago, when media usage was still 10 to 1 in favor of "Kiev". So that data point is really not anything new or indicative. The whole issue needs a moratorium, tightly enforced, for at least six months. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I am happy to read new and new info about the progress, new sources on board (or not), but of course it does not mean it should each time result in move request. Maybe even opposers would say "try it now, now you actually brought very convincing piece of evidence, now you have a shot". OK, reply to move request should have been: Google Scholars was considered in previous move requests and it did not helped then. And end it. And this time maybe do a list of things that were already considered and it was not enough. Chrzwzcz (talk) 10:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
At this point, almost everyone is sick and tired of the constant debate over microns of movement. If you put a frog in a hot frying pan, it's obvious to the frog that the pan is not safe and it will hop out. If you put a frog in a cold frying pan and then gradually increase the heat, it won't notice the change and will die in the pan. That's what is happening here. There is simply no way for us to look objectively at the data because every week there is a micron of movement and proponents of the move shout like it's a tsunami. The boys are continually crying "wolf", when it's just a puppy that has gained a few ounces of weight. It's time to let it lie for six months and look at the problem with fresh eyes at that time. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
But it is not the same person who starts RMs! They may even be confused, they too would be tired from reading all the passed discussion and what already was considered and failed to appeal. Let's make a short pro-con list and update it here and then. IMHO hardly any voter reads subpage with naming discussion. In naming discussion, we can do cold pan approach, just "everyday FYI with news about the sources and progress", main talk page would be hot pan approach with RMs max twice a year to spook the voter frogs with significanty increased temperature. Chrzwzcz (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Eg. Everyday FYI 10-30-2019: Economist. Chrzwzcz (talk)
One more time: nobody cares about these announcements that sources say they are changing. What we care about is the effect this may or may not have on the preponderance of actual usage. Every paper, radio station, tv station, etc in the world could SAY that they will use "Kyiv", but unless the actual usage of Kyiv becomes the majority it won't matter. That's why people are saying to put a moratorium on this for 6 months. --Khajidha (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes. IDK why they would they not keep their promise but it looks very hopeful for the supporters. Promises are there, now just wait for it to happen. Further reading about the campaign: (google translated) Yes, it is campaign to push it, but various organizations obeyed, Wiki editors may want to protect English from such influences but in the end Wiki will have to follow. Chrzwzcz (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC) "In addition to the media and air carriers, # CorrectUA now plans to focus on travel hubs (Booking, TripAdvisor) and digital giants (Google, Wikipedia, Facebook)." Brace yourself ;^P Chrzwzcz (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
"Yes. IDK why they would they not keep their promise" I don't know either, but I am still finding stories in the Washington Post (one of which also tagged as being from the AP) that use Kiev. --Khajidha (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
You can find some WP articles with Kiev, some with Kyiv... Maybe some editors did not get the memo and there's no consistency control. Maybe it says something about such newspaper :D Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
If it "says something about such newspaper" it would tend to make your case even weaker. --Khajidha (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The difference is that inclusive language is a growth from within the native speaking population. Words like "nigger", "spic", etc are offensive English words. This request from Ukrainians is from outside the native speaking population and is, thus, not comparable. It is as (in the best interpretation) silly or (in the worst interpretation) offensive as saying that English speakers cannot call a wall a wall. There is no offensive meaning or even connotation to "Kiev" in English. --Khajidha (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Globalization. Nowadays even Ukrainians are able to see your everyday usage and feel offended even though they are not "English language insiders" and you'll say they have a choice to not listen/read English news. Your evaluations only suggest you will never accept it and thus no further reasoning is needed, you made up your mind and that's it. Your government, newspaper and airports "obeyed". 20 random opposers on Wikipedia can only stall it, maybe wait bureaucratically for the 51st %... But is it really worth it? Now you may be right that the usage ratio is not there yet, but your other comments shows me you are not ready to accept it anyway, ratio is just good excuse for now, then we can expect something about silliness of such demand. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
No, they have the choice to realize that English is neither Russian nor Ukrainian so there is nothing for them to be offended by.--Khajidha (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
It is Russian rooted, we have sources and statements for that. It does not matter anyway why Ukrainians feel offended by that, they expressed their wish and it looks like it was accepted. Your opinions and evaluations is irrelevant here, sources matter. English opened to the world so now it must deal with the fact that much more people, languages and others influence it and directly affect it. Your statements like - "I don't care about Ukrainian so they should not care about English" - is completelly invalid here. Chrzwzcz (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note that I have opened a formal move request which directly addresses WP:COMMONNAME concerns with evidence particularly resting on usage in reliable sources. I believe wholeheartedly that User:Sanya3 is correct that we have reached the turning point on usage, but I would like my request to be considered independently on its policy-based merits. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
IMHO lowest possible threshold for acceptance was crossed - so it is possible... but quite unlikely for now. Chrzwzcz (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
All discussions about the name have been policy-based ("Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)", but common name isn't decided by what you see when doing a search through Google Scholar alone, but based on all reliable sources, and based on use in all reliable sources Kiev is still used by a very significant majority of all such sources. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:22, 26 October 2019 (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.


Revert

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.

User:Ymblanter, learn the wikipedia rules, please, although you should have done it long before. There is only one state language in Ukraine, so we don't need to add the translation into any other languages, except for Ukrainian. For instance, we don't add the name of Moscow in the Uzbek language --Devlet Geray (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC) p.s. I am not against Kiev as the name of the article --Devlet Geray (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no single policy of the English Wikipedia which says we should only give the name in the state language. Quite the opposite. Since you apparently are familiar with the policies much better than I am (thank you for kindly advising me to learn the policies), it must be trivially easy for you to find what exactly applies here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Why doesn't new york have it's name in spanish then? Blindlynx (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Because Spanish was never the state language of New York, while Russian was, indeed, the state language of Ukraine for a few centuries. Check out Lviv where Polish is included because, wait for it, Lviv was part of Poland for centuries. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
So is it because of historical ownership or "languages a significant part of their population speak"? if it's the former why not have Munsee and Dutch in the article for New York? Blindlynx (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Because there is no longer a significant portion of the population of New York that speak either Dutch or Munsee. Don't even try to claim that there is not a significant portion of the population of Kyiv that speaks Russian. So Russian and Polish (and Hungarian in Transcarpathia) are former state languages AND still have significant portions of the population that speak them in those cities (I've spoken Hungarian in Uzhhorod and seen the Polish flags around Lviv). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
You saying Lviv has a significant portion of the population that still speaks Latin? or Gdańsk one that speaks German?Blindlynx (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
You are straying into silliness now. The bottom line is that you can find examples of anything in Wikipedia, that's why we always remember WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you're trying to do something unique, there is a problem, but if what you are doing is done elsewhere then that's probably OK. But ultimately each article is individual and bound by WP:CONSENSUS at that article. You don't have any consensus here for your POV. You're just pushing a Ukrainian-only agenda that you will find no support for among the majority of English-speaking editors who work on the English Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not pushing for anything, i'm not the one who changed it. I'm just trying to understand what the justification for leaving out Polish, or Lithuanian or whatever here is. It's infuriating that everything is so inconsistently applied! Lviv gets a pile or languages (including Russian) and honestly i think that's probably what should happen here too but i'm not going to change it without figuring out what it should be, given how heating this page always gets.Blindlynx (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
"just trying to understand" is pretty simple. Every page is different until you can convince a majority of the editors of a given page that it isn't. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
The actual style guideline is at MOS:FORLANG. The other why’s mentioned above are not authoritative. —Michael Z. 2020-05-16 00:40 z
I find it humorous that someone actually quotes a manual of style entry that includes the word "typically". That's not a hard and fast rule because you can find multiple exceptions to it no matter what region of the world you look at. In other words, "typically" means "on the average", not "must". Editors ignore MOS:FORLANG and WP:CONSENSUS overrides it. It works like a guideline, not as a hard and fast policy. Don't try to wikilawyer it, local consensus will always trump it. Look at the top of the page for MOS:FORLANG and you will see the keyword "guideline" and not "policy". Michael Z is wrong, the MOS is not authoritative over consensus because it's just a guideline. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Nice one. Can you quote the parts that were “wrong” and “wikilawyering”? Because I’m not seeing them. You know, in what I wrote, not in your slagging me. —Michael Z. 2020-05-16 16:43 z 16:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Tht's easy. You were wrong in your implication that discussion is over because you posted a link to a "guideline" as if it were authoritative and consensus was not. Insisting that a guideline is more authoritative than local consensus is wikilawyering. Whether you were "insisting" or not is open to interpretation, but in the context of the discussion when you flatly said that only your post is authoritative was over-the-top wikilawyering and was wrong because a consensus always trumps a guideline. I haven't even mentioned that the wording of the guideline is open to local interpretation and doesn't lay down a hard and fast rule. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:17, 16 May 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.

The name "Kiev" is used 3 times more frequently than "Kyiv"

We already did this. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:57, 2 November 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.


Why someone changed the name of the city from "Kiev" to "Kyiv"? If you check Google, you will see the following:

Kiev: 130000000 results on Google

Kyiv: 45100000 results on Google

So, in 75% of cases people use the word "Kiev" and only in 25% the word "Kyiv". You should revert this change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:20:1015:5C20:8DB6:1BA5:C4D3:9C91 (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. It is a good one.
In short: both Kiev and Kyiv are common names in use, but Kyiv satisfies more of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including WP:MODERNPLACENAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. This conclusion was supported by a rough consensus of two to one by participants in a very long debate on the article's discussion page, and the title was changed on 16 September 2020. You can read the full rationale and discussion in the talk archive: talk:Kyiv/Archive 6#Requested move 28 August 2020.
The decision followed a huge debate with a lot of participants on both sides. The rationale for the decision was solid, and there has been no viable challenge. To avoid disruption requests to rename this article again are under a moratorium for a year after the recent move. I’m afraid this is set in stone for the next while.
As many commented during the debates, Wikipedia is a follower, and not a trend-setter. If you have a look at the kind of reliable sources that Wikipedia’s information is based on, you’ll find that many or most current news sources, academic publishers, and other media already use the spelling Kyiv. This was a fair and correct move, at this time.
I’ve added part of this answer to the FAQ banner at the top of this page. —Michael Z. 20:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
By the way, the Google search results counts at the top of the page are inaccurate, sometimes wildly. To get the real numbers, do a smaller search and go to the last page of results. The number at the top of that page, only, is correct. More info at WP:GOOGLE
Right now, Google Web searches for "Kiev" -Wikipedia and "Kyiv" -Wikipedia limited to the past 24 hours return 219 and 120 results, respectively (not 276,000 and 75,000 as estimated on the first page), or a ratio of just over 1.8 to 1. Google News searches for Kiev and Kyiv give me 36 and 65 results, or 1 to 1.8. —Michael Z. 20:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

(Where are all the highly motivated enforcers of moratoriums now?) —Michael Z. 12:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Mzajac, it would probably be helpful to develop an FAQ subpage (maybe it has and I've missed it) so that we can point to that answer when the Kiev/Kyiv question is raised again in the future (and for this IP now). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Good idea. I didn’t know that was a thing. I will also suggest that we clean up or close off the separate naming-discussion ghetto. Thanks. —Michael Z. 19:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
It would only make sense to then rename Cologne into Köln, according to that rule then. --Spafky (talk) 19:57, 15 October 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 or Kiev"

In the lead the name of the city is stated as "Kyiv or Kiev", placing equal emphasis on both names. This is inaccurate to contemporary English language sources which overwhelmingly use Kyiv and not Kiev. Therefore, a better sentence would be something along the lines of "Kyiv, formerly known in English as Kiev...". JayAmber (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It is still known in English as Kiev, whether print or spoken, just not as often as Kyiv. Contemporary would be what? The last 10-20 years. Certainly not only the last year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
First position is a minor emphasis. —Michael Z. 01:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Lack of reference to Kiev in the opening paragraph?

I understand the move to using Kyiv predominantly, I'm not here to argue in favor of using Kiev in the rest of the article. But to omit the use of the word Kiev in the first paragraph altogether seems unusual and unlike Wiki standards. Myanmar still notes in the first sentence that it is "also called Burma" (which it is not, with exception of history books). If something as extreme as the Myanmar/Burma case warrants including Burma in the opening paragraph, a much more recent "renaming" of Kiev to Kyiv most certainly warrants an "also called Kiev" in the opening paragraph. KarstenO (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Myanmar/Burma is unfortunately not the best reference: this is change of the name of the country. Similar like Astana and Nursultan - same city which was renamed officially by government.
Kyiv has never been renamed. Kyiv has always been Kyiv. Kiev - is Russian pronunciation of the city which was wrongly popularized during USSR period.
I think it is about time we stop supporting Russian pronunciation of Ukrainian cities and start pronounce them as the Ukrainians do. Iryna Pita (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Myanmar and Burma are the same name, just in different registers of the Burmese language.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I completely disagree. Especially considering that a massive number of Ukrainians speak Russian as a first language. For them it's Kiev, and it's their city as much as Ukrainians. I disagree with the idea that there should be an idea of "until recently Kiev". It's called Kiev as much as it's Kyiv, those are two valid names for the same city. GRM Al (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I just noticed a mistake. Both Ukranian Russians and ethnic Ukrainians are Ukrainian. The latter is what I meant as "Ukrainian" in the previous post. GRM Al (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Lviv is also Lvov and that's how it's presented in its article. Just as Kyiv is also Kiev, with equal validity. Just a distinct pronounciation of the same name. Similar to how we see Beijing and Peking. GRM Al (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"Kyiv" is artificial Orwellian Newspeak. 71.173.16.64 (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by "omit the use." The first sentence of the first paragraph states "Kyiv or Kiev is the capital and most populous city of Ukraine." Sure looks like it was prominently mentioned to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive_15&oldid=1089879740"