Talk:Kiev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Peer review Kiev has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cities on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments for details.
Flag of Ukraine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukrainian subdivisions
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukrainian subdivisions (Talk) :
This article is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
Peer review This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Geography.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:


Contents

[edit] DO READ ARCHIVES ABOVE BEFORE PLAYING WITH KIEV/KYIV/KIJOW/etc THINGS

[edit] Summary of older discussions over names in the articles

For those who are too lazy to read older discussions here is a quick summary. Polish names probably exist for every city of Ukraine. There are three ways how they can apply.

  1. For some cities, their Polish name is so important that it may be found in English texts even nowadays (Lviv/Lwow/Lvov/Lemberg). For such cities it needs to be placed in the very first line of the article, except perhaps when the article has a name etymology piece close to the top where similar names are listed and explained (current solution at Kamianets-Podilskyi). In such articles all names except native are given within etymology discussion.
  2. For some cities, while much of the Polish history still applies to them, they are never, or almost never, called nowadays by their Polish names in English language texts. Examples are Kiev/Kyiv/Kijow, Chernihiv/Chernigov/Czernihow, Kaniv/Kanev/Kaniow, etc. Polish name should be used for such cities in the history sections (like Voivodship name) but not in the first line, because otherwise (like for Kiev) any name of any country that ever conquered it (Lithuanian, German, Crimean Tatarian, Swedish, whatever was the Khazar language, Cuman, etc.) deserves the place in the first line. Similarly, Варшава, Белосток, Краков, at times conquered and controlled by Russia, by this token would need to be mentioned in the first lines of the respective articles (and I know some of our Polish friends will not take it lightly). This would be clutter and/or bad blood. We have a separate list article called Names of European cities in different languages for this information.
  3. Finally, for some cities in Ukraine (Sevastopol, Kramatorsk) Polish name is totally irrelevant.

The same rule of thumb applies to Russian names. However unfortunate it may seem for some, many Ukrainian cities are mentioned in English by their Russian names occasionally even today (Kharkiv/Battle of Kharkov, Chornobyl/Chernobyl accident), etc. So, there are more Russian names than Polish ones in the first lines. I hope I captured everything. Do read archives, if interested. --Irpen 17:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Good as long as we're all clear on this. -Iopq 23:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This was an implied consensus. However, it was never voted or formally approved, unlike Gdansk/Danzig dispute. If most agree on this, I could set up a page for up and down vote on this proposal so that edits in violation of consensus (if reached) could be reverted on sight similar to Gdansk/Danzig vote results. Any objections to trying to run such a survey? --Irpen 03:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and of course we need to establish in advance the criteria of establishing sufficient English usage. I propose the following:
  1. check other respected encyclopedia such as Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Americana, Microsoft Encarta. What names they mention early on?
    The only issue I'd like to raise about using other encyclopedias is if we do so extensively (and as I've seen, many articles source other encyclopedias as source), it almost becomes pointless to write the article in the first place. Why not just say "Read Brtiannica"? And further, doesn't it become a copyright issue, also? -- mno 01:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Check the current media usage. Search engines are LexisNexis, Google News, maybe others...
  3. An good old google test but only among English language web-pages.
Does the list seem objective and unbiased? --Irpen 03:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. I can see how this would apply to article titles, but can we extend it to include the secondary names too?
I would add that the default titles for Ukrainian place names on Wikipedia have generally been spelt using the simplified National transliteration system (see Romanization of Ukrainian). Notable exceptions are the well-known names Kiev, Odessa, Dnieper, but not Kharkiv, Lviv. —Michael Z. 2005-10-11 15:52 Z
PS: let's not create any templates of domination. —Michael Z. 2005-10-11 21:04 Z

I am also against domination templates. To Michael's question on how this would apply not only to article's titles but also the secondary names, my view is the following. First of all, primary names (titles) are more or less settled now. Except of Kiev, Odessa, some cities of Crimea (as well as the name Crimea itself), Dnieper, Southern Bug (maybe there are a couple of more examples but I can't think of any off hand) the Ukrainian name is primary and the article is entitled by its transliterated version. This is already determined via the criteria listed above by looking for the most common English usage and finding that for the places of UA, except those listed above, the most common usage name coinsides with the transliterated Ukrainian name. In a similar way, we can determine an existence of the usage for the secondary name. EB article for Kharkiv is called Kharkiv, but introduces Kharkov in the first line. EB article on Lviv introduces Russian, Polish and German names, EB's Chernivtsi introduces Romanian, Russian and German. I am not saying we should just copy Britannica. If we find via methodes 2 and 3 that other names (Czernihów) are used in modern English we will also add them to the first line.

Let me repeat that the issue here is not the usage of the names in the article in appropriate context Czernihów Voivodship but what names should be mentioned in the first line. I want to settle the issue not because I want to remove some particular names, but because settling this would help consistency, reduce clutter (explained in the beginning of this section) and put an end to a very popular type of edit wars over this. So, any objections to putting this proposal up for a vote? I will then set a separate page for this. Thanks! --Irpen 04:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is one more related question. Which name should be used in the text. Should it be the title of the article, excluding probably some historial names like Kijow Voivodship?--AndriyK 11:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that here are three issues: what name to use for the article's title (settled earlier practically for all Ukrainian places), the name(s) to mention in the first line and the name to use within the articles. We are not deciding the latter issue right now, but a rule of thumb is to use the name that is used in modern English L. history books that write about that particular period. This tradition is broader than WP. Check for instance WW2 books terminology. However, this discussion for now is only about the names to be listed in the first line as alternative names. --Irpen 02:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading old discussions and it seems the trend is to beginning to emerge to write it as Kyiv. More new webpages on google write it as Kyiv. But since so many old webpages remain, it will take a long time before Kyiv becomes the most popular google spelling. Compared to 2003, the ratio between Kyiv and Kiev has shrunk considerably. Even in a few months that I spend looking it seems Kyiv gained on Kiev. We should begin thinking about when we plan to rename the article to Kyiv. -Iopq 10:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
What we are discussiong right now are the rules of the game not the particular name. When Kyiv prevails in English L usage, we will move the article. What matters much more than google test, is the major media test as well as other online reference sources, like Britannica and Oxford. I proposed Kharkov->Kharkiv and Lugansk->Luhansk myself as you can see if you read the earlier discussions. Let's just all agree on the general rules first and discuss the applications for particular cities separately. --Irpen 16:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Remember: Wikipedia:Use English. What about use inside article? Let me add a comment based on personal experience: there are new Polish names waiting for English/Russian/Ukrainian versions in the Dymitriads article. I find it useful to keep Polish names in the article (after first instance of use, following English of course), since they are useful when one wants to research some stuff in Polish (many of my articles are based on transltion from Polish and I find it mighty useful to have Polish name mentioned in the articles). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not about the use inside of the articles as I said above. This is only about the first line. Besides, we have a great list of Names of European cities in different languages. Use inside the articles is a separate issue. --Irpen 04:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

At the present time, Kiev is the name the Beeb uses, for whatever that's worth [2]. Shimmin 17:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Even More Kiev Kyiv

Hi! Do we realy need writing and pronounciation of Kiev in Russian at the begining of the article - "Russian: Ки́ев, Kiyev"? It's not official language neither in Ukraine nor in Kiev city. --Oleksandr, 22 July 2006

We do this for many Ukrainian cities. Some even list the city's name in Polish, German, Hungarian, or Hebrew. That way people can scan the header to see if the article is about the city they are thinking about, no matter what the current name is.--tufkaa 14:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

U.S. government changes spelling of capital to Kyiv instead of Kiev --Gutsul 11:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I am willing to take photos

Hello. I am living in Kyiv now and I am willing to take photos (Metros, streets, buildings, statues... whatever) but would like to know what is most needed. Is there a list that I missed and if not can we come up with one? Thanks. Greg.ory 16:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Publish them on Commons, Metro is desperately needed. Please register so that you have a talk page and I tell you details of what is required.--Kuban kazak 16:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've registered (as Greg.ory) what do I need to do for you to be able to post on my talk page? Greg.ory 16:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing, just wait for me to post now...:)-Kuban kazak 17:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Kyiv sound-bite

The Ukrainian one, not the Russian one. It's barely intelligible, at least to my ears. It seems truncated and somewhat muffled. Maybe someone would like to re-record it and upload a better and improved version. Peter1968 14:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes please, its difficult to make sense of the Kiev/Kyiv issue without knowing how the latter ought to sound. People tend to forget that simple convenience of pronunciation in the "host" language is an important issue in toponymy. Sumergocognito 07:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kyiv appear on the internet

Recently surfing inernet i was surprised of numerous sites to use Kyiv. Here are some examples

Ilya K 10:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

When I saw this post, I started surfing, and got thousands of hits for Kiyev. And that doesn't have the Ukrainian government and other Ukrainian nationalist institutions badgering English-speaking news organizations to adopt it! - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you proving that Kiyev is not an official spelling? I believe that the ongoing situation is that there was an official name change several years ago that Wikipedia refuses to recognize, contrary to other official name changes (Bombay, Ivory Coast, Siam, etc...). Not recognizing the name that a sovereign person/place/people call themselves is not only incredibly disrespectful, but will also result in a neverending string of inquiries and edits from those who know better. For instance, Serhiy's post a little higher up.--tufkaa 15:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The right of non-English speaking governments to prescribe the forms and vocabulary of the English language is doubtful, even more doubtful when the city of Kiev itself has two native names, a Russian and Ukrainian form. It would be POV to choose one over the other, especially as the actual English name is so dominant. I notice Ukrainian nationalists don't seem to care so much about Kiev's name on the wikipedias of other languages. Why is that? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The only factor or at least the major factor is prevailing Modern English usage. The latter is simplest to derive from surveying the MAJOR media, thus exlcuding small news outlets that don't have a consistent editiorial policy or editorial staff to proofread and enforce it and check other major encyclopedia. As per prevailing English usage I pushed moving Kharkov to Kharkiv, Lugansk to Luhansk, etc. For the very same reason, Kiev should not be moved, at least for now. Encyclopedia don't set the trends in English, they simply reflect them. If anyone is interested in the Major media survey, I can provide you with the data. I have access to restricted news search engines, like Lexis Nexis, that unlike Google news, that checks on everything, allows to search exclusively through the international major papers. Also, check Britannica.

To remind, this superfactor (prevailing media usage) is only relevant for choosing the article title! In context usage inside article is a different matter. If the context for non-prevailing modern usage in the literature is established differently from the modern name, by all means use it. For instance, Kijow Voivodship, Battle of Kharkov or Lwow University. However, there is no historical context in the Western English language media where Kyiv is traditionally used, while even Kijow is used on rare occasion. This may be sad to some, but Wikipedia is the wrong place to address it, if you see it a problem. Encyclopedias reflect the usage rather than establish or promotes it.

I summarized the difference between the choice of the article title and the context usage here. Now, Serhiy, please help us write articles rather than fight over terms. You work in adding content to Wikipedia would be very much appreciated. Please check the Ukraine portal for things you can do. --Irpen 16:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the internet is full of nationalistic Ukrainian websites, as well as those few news organizations who slavishly and ignorantly caved into the demands and arguments of the Ukrainian government, Kiev crushes Kyiv by a larger margin (4 times in fact) than Kyiv beats Kiyev. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no question that the internet spells Kyiv in a variety of ways. However, this does not change the name of the city. The city was renamed Kyiv by the sovereign government, much the name changes of Bombay, Ivory Coast, Siam, Leningrad, etc... While it may be referred to personally in a variety of ways, the largest web-based encyclopedic resource at the moment treats Kyiv in a manner inconsistent with other name changes, barring the day that an internet search comes up with more hits for Kyiv. Needless to say, such a policy will continuously bring about users such as Serhiy (you noticed I spelled his name as he spells it, not as most people on the internet would spell it).--tufkaa 18:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Tufkaa, unlike Leningrad and Ivory Coast, the city was NOT renamed. It has always been Київ in Ukrainian, Киев in Russian, Kijow in Polish, Kiew in German. It has been called differently at various times in English and the oldest recorded English spelling of this name (Kiovia) was probably Polish based. Ukrainian gov in 1991 did not rename the city but simply required the Ukrainian governmental organization to use Kyiv in the English documents they issue. In fact, this is the only issue over which it has any authority, except actually they could, perhaps, rename the city to, say, Kravchukiv (kidding). They can order the governmental organizations to use Kyiv but they have no authority over the English language in general, in fact no one has. There is no unique answer to the question of which of Kiev/Kyiv/Kijow is "correct". In fact they all are. The question is which name of the three (or more) correct names should we use for the article's title. Our naming convention WP:UE is clear on that:

If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works.

We go check the usage using the media and we go check other encyclopedia.[3] That gives the answer: Kiev. Not because it is Russian based but because it is the most commonly used English name as of today. --Irpen 05:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interestingly Mumbai was not mentioned in your response. :)
Also, the parallel with Côte d'Ivoire is striking. In that particular case, since it passed a law in 1985, the sovereign government requests that the name not be translated from French, and Wikipedia complies. I therefore see a discriminatory naming policy, and I am relatively sure that I'm not the only one who sees this.
Frankly, the only reason that we refer to Saint Petersburg or Thailand by their current names is because of international recognition of their respective naming conventions. Why can't we do the same with the capital of Ukraine?--tufkaa 18:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Because this is not the most commonly used English name. International recognition is an important step towards the name gaining usage. If and when it gains usage and beats Kiev, we will rename an article. Côte d'Ivoire prevails the Ivory Coast in the modern media usage. Kyiv doesn't. The reason, perhaps, is that the major European city is simply more a widely used term than the name of the small African country (that is discriminatory but it is so). As such, the name of the city got so widely known that the Anglophones are reluctant to switch and the media reflects that.

This whole issue puts us, the Ukrainians, in an unfavorable light and making us a laughing stock. Munichers don't scream to rename a WP article to München. Neither do Muscovites, about the renaming the article to Moskva. Note also, the many in Russia perceive the term Muscovy and Muscovite as Russophobic, still no mess. The Polish capital's article is Warsaw and not Warszawa, Prague and not Praha, etc. The article titles are based by prevailing English usage. How and why this usage became prevailing is a secondary issue and may be worth an article on its own. I, for a long time, proposed an article Name of the capital of Ukraine, whose talk page will, hopefully, be a single place for all these debates rather than a multitude of pages now.

Kiev is a single most widely used name of the city in English as of now and is used in other encyclopedias. No matter why, this settles the issue. As for why, by all means write an article on that. --Irpen 19:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason is there are more documents published in the last 100 years than in the last 10 years. -Iopq 23:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the reason is, it is the most widely used name in currently published texts in English as well. Check the media. In any case, wait for it to change before arguing and, in the meanwhile, help improve the article if there are other aspects in Kiev of interest to you rather than the obsession with de-Russification. --Irpen 17:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Popular ignorance is not a valid factor to determine usage. The fact remains that the Ukrainian government has changed the name of the city. Wikipedia can either accurate reflect this change - as it has for other place names like Bombay or it can give in to popular ignorance and remain a laughing-stock. --SpinyNorman 04:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Laughing stock are the countries who try to influence the English language as opposed to dealing with their internal problems (which in case of Ukraine, there are a few). Take Fifa world cup, and the football side on networks such as BBC is Ivory Coast, in yesterday's match against Saudi Arabia, all of the commentators reffered to the Ukrainian capital as Ki-jev. Which version is used? Judge it for yourself. --Kuban Cossack 11:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you calling Ukraine a laughing stock? That doesn't make sense, since the Ukrainian government is not the one arguing what Kiev/Kyiv should be called, but the people of the English Wikipedia are. By the way, the infobox says "Kyiv" while the article's name is "Kiev". — Alex (T|C|E) 04:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it will be possible to rename article the next day Kyiv.ua DNS zone will be established in place of current kiev.ua --TAG 10:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ukrainian Journal. Kiev, Kyiv or simple thoughts on Ukrainian affairs by nonpartisan

I've' just learned new Ukrainian word 'екшн', thought for a second and then realized, because it referred to a movie, must be borrowed from english action. Apparently russians got ahead on this one by loan word 'акшн'. Ukrainian version didn't want to be sound anywhere close like it was reborroewd from russian. Good for them. I think it should be more ukrainian words in english language. Words which doesn't sound anything like russian, something like cherevichky would be a perfect example or may be Nimechina instead of Germany. Sounds much better then Kyiv. Imprevu 19:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's 'экшн' in Russia, which is pronounced in precisely the same way as Ukrainian 'екшн'. Both are the closest you can get to the phonetic transcription of 'action' using Cyrillic alphabet. int19h 22:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rearrange pix

could someone please rearrange the galleries into logical groupings? (example: Cathedrals and churches gallery, Buildings gallery, Monumentsallery) or something similar? WoodElf 06:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Correct me if I am mistaken, but shouldn't we include Kiev into the Category:Holy cities as Kiev is listed here? —dima /sb.tk/ 00:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but under Eastern Orthodox, not Ethiopian holy cities.--Riurik 21:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics Table

Historical populations
Census Pop. %±
1979 2,144,000 N/A
1989 2,595,000 +21.0%
2001 2,611,327 +0.6%
2005 2,660,401 +1.8%
* data source: [1]

I made up the table of demographics, but could not figure out a way to cite within the table. So instead, I inserted a temporary sentence in the section's 1st paragraph. If you can fix it please do.--Riurik 21:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried also, and could not do it in a reasonable way: It'll work if we place the <ref></ref> on the pop. numbers like so.
The histpop template doesn't allow for a citation. I think the table has to be remade from scratch (not too hard, using the template as a prototype), or the template must be modified to allow this. I can do this, but I won't have time for two or three days. —Michael Z. 2006-07-29 06:48 Z
The Histpop template will work with citations, using either <ref></ref> or <ref>{{cite}}. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest putting the reference in the footnote section. Change the above table to reflect that. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 13:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate table

I made a new table based on the found here. It took some time recalculating mm > inches, etc, and changing the color codes, but in the end it looks good. Numbers/calculations were double checked, and the table seems to be accurate and ready for everyone's scrutiny.--Riurik 18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holy city?

Could someone explain this one being categorized as a holy city (Category:Holy cities) and being added to the List of holy cities as "Origin of Slavic Christianity"? Kiev has nothing to do with the "origin of Slavic Christianity", which emerged in Great Moravia and the First Bulgarian Empire in the middle of the 9th century, whereas Kievan Rus' wasn't Christianized until as late as 988. That said, I've reworded the thing as "Origin of East Slavic Christianity" and I'd like to see some evidence as to whether Kiev is really considered a "holy city" by the Orthodox Christians and why. No offence, but I wouldn't categorize a city that is not of universal Orthodox ecclesiastical importance as a holy city. If no convincing evidence is provided, I shall remove it from the category it doesn't belong to and remove it from the list of holy cities. Todor→Bozhinov 16:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing it. Todor→Bozhinov 10:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Restoring as an origin of East Slavic Christianity. "The supreme centre and for all time is Jerusalem. But there are other lesser historic centres - Rome, Constantinople, Kiev, Moscow." [4] --KPbIC 06:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All things considered

The U.S. government (State Department) now spells it Kyiv and pronounces it accordingly. (according to the 17th Oct. 2006 "All Things Copnsidered" program.211.225.32.57 08:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To quote the statement:

One last diplomatic note now, one which has nothing to do with things nuclear, the U.S. government, specifically the Board on Geographic Names, is changing the spelling of the capital of Ukraine. It has been Kiev, "K"-"I"-"E"-"V". It will now be spelled "K"-"Y"-"I"-"V", on maps and documents, and all other things governmental. And the pronunciation, we're told by the State Department, is kyiiv. The decision was made on October 3rd, and has already been adopted across Washington. Word from the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington is that the U.S.has finally gotten it right.

This clip can be heard here, beggining at the 5:25 mark.--tufkaa 15:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
2006.10.19
U.S. Board of Geographic Names Decision to Change Official Spelling of Kyiv

This decision was made to change the spelling of the capital of Ukraine to what is now currently spelled K-y-i-v. The reasons for this as I understand the board's decision making was that this is more in keeping with how the Ukrainians themselves pronounce the name of their capital. It is also now in keeping with how a number of international organizations, including NATO and the UN, are now spelling it. So basically it was a change designed to be more consistent both with local pronunciation standards as well as to ensure some consistency with what other international organizations as well as the Ukrainians themselves are doing.

Mr. Tom Casey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.160.234.1 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC).


Came here to post the same message, thanks guys for already having done this!! And so, why don't we finally get rid of that "Kiev" here on WP as well. Respectfully await your comments for a day or two by way of discussion, before going ahead and changing all mentionings of "Kiev" to "Kyiv". Serhiy 06:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Serhiy, please note that Kiev remains the prevailing English usage by the media no matter how the US gov spells it in official documents. Unlike Ukrainian or Russian, for which the official regulating bodies exist (respective Academies of Sciences), there are no such bodies for the English language, neither among the academies nor in the US or British gov. The encyclopedic choice is governemd by the prevailing anglophone usage and this is the basic rule. How to determine it is more difficult and many proposal to write firm rules that would help us determine prevailing usage were discussed. As a rule of thumb, the modern usage is best determined by the major anglophone media. I assure you that when the media will switch the usage , encyclopedias, including this one, would follow. Of course if you feel that WP is already ripe for this change, the right way to proceed is not 'changing all mentionings of "Kiev" to "Kyiv"' but move the article first and then change inside it. Nothing can prevent you from proposing the move at WP:RM but since it would be against the current prevailing usage in English (see WP:NC(UE)) the move will not win many votes. So, if you feel like wasting yours and others' time, go ahead and propose it. But better, please help adding more content to the article.
Finally, note that the very AP report that reported about the change of the US gov spelling ends with "The Associated Press continues to spell the name of the capital Kiev." Much more people read AP and CNN than US gov web-sites. --Irpen 06:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Considering that it was decided by the Ukrainian commission for legal nomenclature in 1995 that the English spelling should by Kyiv as it is a much more phonetically accurate translation of the Ukrainian word for the city, and that in October the US State Department changed the spelling from Kiev to Kyiv (see http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/19/america/NA_GEN_US_Ukraine_Capital.php), I suggest that 'Kiev' is changed to 'Kyiv' here. --Bred 17:08, 10 December 2006 (GMT)

Please, read Irpen's comment above (which also describes the proper procedure to do the change through WP:RM). - Regards, Evv 17:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Киев still Russian name

On the point about those who "take exception", could it be stated that English speakers' continued use of the spelling "Kiev" is not considered politically motivated?

Might also be relevant to mention that unlike English speakers, Russian speakers around the world are not being urged to Ukrainianize the way they write the city's name in their native language (→ "Кыйив" or "Кыив" "Кийв"). On the contrary the Ukrainian government continues to use the spelling "Киев" in its own Russian-language publications, without Ukrainianization.

-- Abut 18:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC). Correction by Abut 15:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Sorry but what do you mean by that, you want Russians to use the spelling Кыйив? A fat chance that is going to happen...Not only is Ukraine trying to mutilate the English langauge, but now you want have it do the same to Russian?--Kuban Cossack 21:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is not about wanting or not wanting, it's about presenting the facts - in this case that English speakers are actively being urged to Ukrainianize their spelling and pronunciation while Russian speakers, AFAIK, are not. -- Abut 15:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see reasons to debate this. All you need is to travel over Odessa -> Kyiv autobahn and see how many different spelling of Kyiv in English language are used on road signs (installed officially). --TAG 15:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Russia is NEVER going to change the spelling of Kiev. Neither is Poland (Kijow). And, Kuban Cossack, what's up with the attacks on Ukraine about mutilating other languages? What's the basis for that statement? — Alex (T|C|E) 05:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If only more of those who endlessly debate the issue were interested in contributing anything else to the article but the endless naming wars. --Irpen 17:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The spelling of Kyiv needs to be changed today, I don't know how to do whatever you said earlier about the correct way to get it changed, but it needs to be done now rather than later. It is the correct transliteration and if only more people knew that this is not just about a name being spelled correctly, but rather Ukrainians being respected for being Ukrainians, we are no longer under moskali rule, and the only reason it is spelled the moskali way is because we were slaves for them for 400 years. They had total control over our language and everything else about us. This is 1 step in changing us being considered "russians" by people all over the world. We are Ukrainians, and we have our own language! Stop the persecution of our language! Spell our capital city in our tounge, not in the tounge of the invaders!--Nroscha 09:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Gallery

I suggest that the picture galleries from architectural monuments and views of kiev be merged into a single Picture Gallery at the end of the article, before the references. --WoodElf 09:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding new link to External links

Hello, recently I've added new link to External links, but wiki moderator removed it. This site (www.mykiev.info) doesn't advertise anything, but only gives the most full information about Kiev landmarks. There is no any analogue site in the internet both in Russian and English languages, so I think it worth adding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zakusha (talk • contribs) 15:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Please, also read WP:EL -- Serguei Trouchelle 17:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kiev-Kyiv: What Google has to say

Since I've seen some people use Google as a source for the Kiev-Kyiv debate, I'm going to use it again. Here's what happens when you go all the way to the end of the search: Kiev returns one less result than Kyiv. This is for those that want to use Google as a reason for this article to stay with the "Kiev" name. — Alex (T|C|E) 03:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This might also mean that there are over 1,000 results for Kyiv, and 999 results for Kiev, making previous claims false. — Alex (T|C|E) 03:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Does the search count pages written by native English speakers only? -- Abut 13:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
This is Google you're talking about. And if you're going to go by what native English speakers have to say, then Kyiv is the official spelling in the United States. — Alex (T|C|E) 02:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "official spelling of the United States". There is "Spelling used the US government bodies". Such spelling is used only by the government and does not necessarily indicate the spelling used by most of the language speakers. The most reliable indication of the latter, is the spelling used by the major media of the United States and UK. BBC, CNN, Associated Press, Reuters, Fox News, New York Times, The Times and others use Kiev. --Irpen 02:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the same go for Bombay? — Alex (T|C|E) 06:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about Bombay. I know about WP:NC(UE) which says: "If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article". Looking at the media usage is the best and most accurate way to find which name is most common. --Irpen 06:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess I should stop the debate. It is fairly pointless anyway, and the usage might change in the future. — Alex (T|C|E) 06:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I also want to point out that Alex made a mistake with his interpretation of "all the way to the end of the search". The links he provided above show "Results 991 - 999 of about 39,900,000 for Kiev" and "Results 991 - 1000 of about 5,650,000 for Kyiv". The difference is over 34 million hits, not just one. This is not to mention that Irpen raised a valid point about the results including only native English-language sources, and that google search should not be used as the main resource to resolve this kind of problems.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
And I also want to point out the regrettable lack of interest of so many contributors to this talk towards any improvement of the article itself. 75% of the archives is the discussion about the name. If only some of the concerned about the renaming showed a slightest interest in improving this article's content! Of all the Ukrainian articles this is one of the better ones and could have been brought to FA if there was sufficient interest in improving it. The article on Ukrainian capital carrying a prestigious "Featured" label would raise the profile of the good coverage of Ukraine in WP incomparably greater much more than this endless whining about English speakers' reluctance to accept neologisms some are trying to impose on them. --Irpen 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
About the article, it would be nice to have a section devoted to upcoming constructions in the city. — Alex (T|C|E) 05:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On priorities again

Having waged a blatant propaganda war on Ukrainian pages, Muscovian editors are significantly damaging non-political, but top-important, pages in the first place. Like this one.

I mean we almost live at Soviet partisans, bloody Red Army and History of Сhristianity in Ukraine conducting edit wars there for years. But just take look at city and oblast pages!!! A "Federal city"?! "The city istelf designated as its own raion"? Kyiv Oblast ODA Chief is chairing the Oblast Council? The Mayor is "traditionally appointed" as KMDA chief? While me and my friends are busy with propagandists, important pages are being gradually destroyed by good-intended amateurs!

Normal users have no other choice, but to mobilize ourselves, split our attempts and start reanimating/developing geo articles like Kiev. Of course keeping eye on existing edit wars as well.AlexPU 20:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not rant and formulate your propositions in some sort of intelligible form. --Irpen 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought I was clearly addressing normal users, not concentrated on Muscovian propaganda and intrigues. I.e., not you Irpen.AlexPU 11:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Easy, easy... Propoganda doesn't stick around long, just don't forcefully remove it. :-) Also, be nice to other Wikipedians. I doubt anybody is here to spread propoganda, and every article is a compromise between many people's points of view, which helps make it neutral. — Alex (T|C|E) 03:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On priorities. "Transport" section has grown too large. I think it needs a separate main article (with updated info on how many new tram lines Lyonia the Cosmos is going to launch :)). AlexkHristov, thanks for your peaceful message. The other Alex is being dangerously straightforward and emotional here :(. As for propaganda, it's flourishing here just like he says :((((. Cheers, Ukrained 20:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. AlexPU, why don't you go and take care of that Kyiv Oblast mistake? As a "father" of all UA-subdivisions info here? Ukrained 20:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I don't think it is necessarily that long.. If it could be expanded some more, including like you said Kiev tram info and bridges of Kiev, then perhaps it could be spun off the main article.. Lets go ahead and try it... —dima/s-ko/ 21:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Correct format

Introduction: History major historical events that occurred in city Law and government Mayor or City Executive-- current, previous executives representative body? Geography Physical geography (area, unique features) Major Parks Transportation Economy Major industries/products taxes Demographics city population racial/ethnic makeup religious makeup Sites of interest Education Public Private Colleges and universities Sports teams Notable natives (Miscellaneous topics and similar lists) External links


The above is the correct format as per WP:CITIES. Please try to follow it. --WoodElf 10:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/i/e/Talk%7EKiev_fd11.html"