Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places)

Official Crimean Tatar names

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

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

The linked articles look good at first glance.

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

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

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

Urban-type settlements

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

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

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

I've got three arguments in favour of Kyiv:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That said google scholar suggests 'Kyivan' is roughly used as much as 'Keivan' in the last year or two [1] [2]

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

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

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

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

Historical contexts for other cases

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

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

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

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

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

Internal consistency vs different periods

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

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

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

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

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