Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:21, 26 April 2006

Kyiv received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Ukraine Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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

Previous discussions:

• Talk:Kiev/Naming issue Archive01 (2003-2004)
• Talk:Kiev/Naming issue Archive02 (January-August 2005)
• Archive03 (non-naming discussions finished by mid-2005)
• Talk:Kiev/Naming issue Archive04 (August-December 2005)

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

Modern City

Is there any chance someone could provide some information about the modern city, rather than its name or history? --Henrygb 23:19, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll have a go at creating some kind of starting point. I've not lived in Kiev for 10 years now, but I've been back enough to see some changes occur. I'll post it here before we decide to move it into the Kiev page. -- mno 6 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)

I've started writing this section. Everyone's welcome to comment and contribute. Until it's more-so complete or at least in a decent shape, I have placed it here: User_talk:Mno/Kiev_Today. -- mno July 8, 2005 13:42 (UTC)

I've made some progress on Modern Kiev and would like to ask everyone to add their changes and comments. Kiev Today. -- mno 17:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Kharkivskyi neighborhood

Hi all. I've created a short article for the Kharvkivskyi neighborhood (under Kharkivskyy because that was the link on the Kiev page). I think it should be called Kharkivskyi, though, not Kharkivskyy. I didn't think about doing the change before I published the article, so maybe someone can please re-link the pages properly? Thanks! -- mno July 6, 2005 15:58 (UTC)

Attractions rearrangement

Presently, the article contains quite a few photos of Kyiv attractions. The photos are a bit scattered and this does not look good. Could anyone try to arrange the photos in nice looking tables, for instance, as it is done in Hawaii. Thanks in advance. Sashazlv 7 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)

Kiev Coat of Arms at the time of Imperial Russia

This image should be removed as someone's modern fantasy. As best I know, the current coat of arms is exactly the same as was used during Catherine the Great's reign. It is featured in Catherine's Gerbovnik as part of coats of arms of different noble families descended from Rurik, e.g., Baryatinsky, Volkonsky, Repnin, etc. --Ghirlandajo 7 July 2005 08:19 (UTC)

Feel free to modify if you are sure the CoA is wrong and see whether anyone will claim you're wrong. I won't. As for the history of this image, I got it from ( http://www.heraldry.com.ua/index.php3?lang=E&context=info&id=476#verh ). Maybe they didn't know what they were writing about. --Irpen July 7, 2005 17:12 (UTC)

Updated lilacs photo

I've updated the photo of the Kiev Botanical Gardens with a photo taken by R. Lezhoev. I have gotten in touch with him and asked his permission to upload the photo on Misplaced Pages. He agreed, assuming he is credited on the page where the photo is shown. The caption right now is a bit long, I'll leave it up to someone to change as they see fit. Getting rid of the note about Vydubychi would probably work. -- mno July 7, 2005 14:23 (UTC)

For those interested to compare the old and the new:

• Old photo: Image:Kiev BotanicalGardens lilacs.jpg (taken approx. 1994)
• New photo: Image:Kiev-BotanicalGarden-1280.jpg (taken 2003)

You can see how much the city changed (grew) from the amount of buildings in the background. Quit amazing. -- mno July 7, 2005 14:25 (UTC)

Livoberezhnyi district

I was just wondering after looking at the metro maps. The station Livoberezhna (meaning left shore or left bank) is located on the right bank of the river (geographically). A future possible metro extension (line 5), is also to be called Livoberezhna while it is located on the rigth bank geogrpahically. It seems the geographically right bank is called the left bank. Am I correct? I think we should add a small note about this somewhere on the Kiev page. -- mno July 7, 2005 16:56 (UTC)

It's the left bank as the river flows; i.e., on your left as you sit in a boat going downstream. —Michael Z. 2005-07-7 17:07 Z

Ah, makes sense. Thanks! -- mno July 7, 2005 17:08 (UTC)

Map of Formal Districts

I've created three versions of the map of distrcits:

• Image:Kiev DistrictMap Ukrainian.png - in Ukrainian
• Image:Kiev DistrictMap English.png - in English
• Image:Kiev DistrictMap Numbers.png - numbered

Feel free to use whichever one. I've added the Ukrainian version to the Districts section of the article.

-- mno 21:55, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hi everybody. Regarding that map: unfortunately, it doesn't reflect the river - which is rather important for understanding the city's subdivision. Would somebody "split" it following the respective raion limits line? Ukrained 19:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Kiev Photos / Pictures

I've contributed a few of the photos to Kiev article in the past. Most of my selections were based on key attractions. I see even more additions of Kiev photos in the Modern Kiev section. I believe that these are ALL GREAT PHOTOS! And I'm sure there are even more. I would love to have a separate section of Kiev Photos which would feature the key attractions. Those could be updated as better photos of the same places turn up...

My proposal - create a separate page on Misplaced Pages : Kiev/Album or Kiev/Photos which would be entirely dedicated to all pics.

On the main article page include one or two photos per related section and a link to the newly created album page where more photos can be viewed.

What do you guys think? -asmadeus 18:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Aaaah... just figured out that there is also tons of Kiev Photos on Wikimedia Commons -asmadeus 18:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Article Quality and Reorganization

I thought about a list what must be done to make Kiev a perfect article. Feel free to add or modify. Sashazlv 04:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Make the lead section shorter. Especially, the paragraph with history. Possibly have 3 paragraphs there, but not more. (I already shortened the history in the lead couple of days ago. Do you think still shorter needed? -Irpen)

Yes, please, try to cut out all inessential detail (like Muskovy, later Russian empire, -- just Russian empire is enough). I think, for the lead, history paragraph is too long. Instead, if possible try to give a sentence or two about major tourist attractions. Plus Eurovision and Orange revolution - for PR reasons - most people are much more interested in recent events than history.

OK, I will try to rewrite the lead as per your suggestion. --Irpen 03:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I am somewhat concerned that Kiev article, as a whole, is improperly structured. For instance, universities are under attractions. That's nonsense. Other important/useful info is missing: e.g., where most government building are, where to look for embassies, where to go shopping. There is no discussion of the economy of Kiev. Sashazlv 08:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

While I mostly agree here, we need to avoid ovedoing it. Embassies, for sure, belong to Wikitravel -Irpen 03:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Also, peers suggest reading articles on other cities as examples. See Misplaced Pages:Peer_review/Kiev. Sashazlv 08:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Will do. --Irpen 03:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

1. Squeeze the into tab.
2. Rearrange pictures into galleries. The way it is done in Hawaii article may be a good example.
3. Redraw the picture with formal districts, Kiev DistrictMap Ukrainian.png into English names
4. Put district names into table.
5. Add section on transportation and consider other possible sections as in New York City article.
6. Make a separate article on the history of Kyiv and summarize history in the main article.

On 1. I agree, I just expanded a lead a little bit, but what I think is that the 2nd para from the lead may actually become a basis for an entire history section and the current history can be indeed spun-off to a separate History of Kiev article. You are correct in everything else here too. This is so much better than Kiev/Kyiv/Kijow wars! Regards, --Irpen 04:14, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

History of Kiev is now a separate article, initially pasted from here. Please go there and help improving it, add pictures, etc. The plan is to have both at FA level. --Irpen 07:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

The current history section is based upon old "quick-history" in the lead. Please remember that History of Kiev is now a separate article and most of editing on history related matters should be there!

The even briefer history outline for the current lead is new. Please help with images arrangement at this page.

Since there is an ongoing drive to make both this and History of Kiev articles featured, please use extra care. Editing is welcome (this is wiki afterall), but please avoid careless "throwing in some thoughts" into the text. Also, a reminder, for Kiev/Kyiv/other disputes, archives reflect some thorough discussion. Before returning to this, read what was said before. Thanks to all! --Irpen 20:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

When I drew the maps of Kiev, I made 3 versions:

Media:Kiev DistrictMap Ukrainian.png

Media:Kiev DistrictMap English.png

Media:Kiev DistrictMap Numbers.png

I can also provide a version without any headings. -- mno 18:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I substituted the second of these for the existing one in the article. Is it possible to slightly color up the map? Say, Obolon in light blue, Pechersk in light green, etc. If that's overly time consuming - no problem, the current version should work fine. Thanks. Sashazlv 05:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I originally had drawn it in different colors, but that looked very ... colourful? ... to me so I changed it to plain. I don't have the coloured version anymore, but I can make it quite easily again. I will upload it in the next few days. -- mno 14:25, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I much prefer the way you guys have done the images now. I found it annoying having to scroll through them all before. -- mno 14:25, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

New Images

The new images look great, but we've lost their logical ordering. Sashazlv 05:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Why is it under Khazar towns | History of Russia categories? Ilya K 17:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages: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 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 . Shimmin 17:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

When did Kiev fall to the Mongols ? 1238 ? 1239 ? or 1240 December 6 ?

The Kiev page says 1238, Mongol invasion of Rus says "After many days of siege, the horde stormed Kiev in December 1239.", and Danylo of Halych and Voivode Dmytro show the date as 1240 December 6. I suspect the Mongols started the attack in 1238 and took 2 years to capture Kiev. Can someone familiar with topic confirm the dates and fix this, please ? -- PFHLai 19:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the specific official date is, but there are some indications that the horrible destruction of Kiev attributed to the Mongol "hordes" were actually committed several years earlier by the neighbouring principalities. Maybe that is the source of the confusion? The year of destruction of Kiev vs. the year when the Mongols sieged it?--NightOnEarth 20:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Any respectable sources that support these "some indications"? To me this sounds like a novel thought in historiography, but of course I am just a Wikipedian and not a historian by profession (though I did read history books). To see the mainstream account, you may start from Britannica, certainly not the best History book, but certainly as mainstream as one can possibly get. A quote from there:

In 1238 a Mongol army under Batu, grandson of Genghis Khan, invaded Rus and, having sacked the towns of central Rus, in 1240 besieged and stormed Kiev. Much of the city was destroyed and most of its population killed. The Franciscan friar and traveler Giovanni da Pian del Carpini six years later reported only 200 houses surviving in Kiev.

--Irpen 20:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I was looking for historic events for the Selected Anniversaries section on MainPage for December 6. If the date of the Fall of Kiev cannot be easily confirmed, I suppose I shouldn't post it on MainPage. Thanks. -- PFHLai 08:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Transportation section needs serious improvement

There are some false and/or ambiguous issues there:

• The only major train station?
• partial collapse of transit system?
• buses including trams???

Somebody fix, or move the whole section here - temporarily. Ukrained 18:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It needs improvement by I don't think it is that bad as to be totally removed from the article to talk. We can improve gradually within the article itslelf. On the side note, the practical collapse of the transit system in the nineties did occur. Also, the suburban transportation including the ran-down buses and the famous Soviet Elektrichkas is totally missing. --Irpen 19:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well there is the Kiev Metro article (I am currentely negotiating with several people for right of images, hopefully I can begin filling out the station details soon). http://www.parovoz.com/ is a good site for information on rail transit. -- Kuban kazak 19:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I lack time, English and special rail terms, not factual info:) I just live here in this transportation system... I think we should closely work with WP-en trains and buses artilces&categories to harvest gizmo words and classification. Ukrained 19:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Structure of the article

IMHO, the existing structure of the sections is poorly readable and priority-missing. So I suggest the following plan of contents:

1. Geography...
2. History
3. Legal status...
4. Subdivisions
5. Modern Kiev (shouldn't we split&develop it to Economy, Architecture, Social, Culture etc.?)
6. Transportation
7. Economy (non-existing so far)
8. Universities
9. Kiev or Kyiv

...

Please modify this structure below with your opinion. To my mind, we should analyze the experience of other megacities/capitals on WP.

I also suggest to establish the structure pattern for all big cities of Ukraine, based on the experience of Kiev. See the discussion here. Ukrained 13:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Ukrained 20:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Seens like copyrights-free photos of Kiev

Hi everybody. In case if anyone interested, I came across the UNIAN Kyivv photogallery that seems to be free for using. Would somebody take a look,investigate the possibilities and start using them? As for me, I don't know how to handle WP images yet. P.S. Merry Orthodox Christmas for everybody! Ukrained 20:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The image at the bottom of the site claims a copyright to UNIAN but the Ukrainian law allows certain exceptions as elaborated in template:PD-UA-exempt.

An excellent source of images from Ukraine is the cite http://sk.vlasenko.org whose author allows the usage of his images in WP under GFDL provided we aknowledge his authorship similar how it is done at Image:Pochaev.jpg. --Irpen 20:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Even though the law may allow certain exceptions, I'm not quite sure that those exceptions apply to the UNIAN images. I would suggest emailing them and clarifying what and how (and if) we can use. I can do that, I have done that a few times. mno 13:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

More Kiev Kyiv

Use English in all. We've had this debate as it relates to the names of Irish towns. Irish Gaeilge just doesn't work no matter how many Irish speakers the town has.

I just left a message for a user at Commons that: while I supported his change of the article to Kyiv (Commons is an interlingual resource), I felt insulted by his assertion that "Kiev" was an American spelling. After checking with Australian, British and Canadian news outlets, all major English speaking nations use the spelling "Kiev". In fact, there's a fascinating article about it here from Canadian Broadcasting Company]. ℬastique▼♥♑ 22:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Please keep in mind that Kyiv is an alternate English spelling, and not merely a Ukrainian transliteration or a neologism. It is still used by some English-language media in English-speaking countries, is has been used in English-language publications since at least a couple of decades in my experience, and is an alternate headword referring to Kiev in my Canadian Oxford Dictionary —Michael Z. 2006-02-06 23:24 Z

What I don't understand is if most Kievans actually use Russian instead of Ukrainian, why would we want to reject the English form? Is it just because the Ukrainian government promotes the Ukrainian language? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Kiev is a Russophone city and strictly the Russian would be Kiyev. So Kiev is a long-established English spelling like Moscow and Warsaw. --Kuban Cossack 00:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

So why, if the city is Russophone and there is an established English-spelling, is there any movement to call it by the Ukrainian name? I mean, if the Ukrainian executive government decided to actually reflect the de facto status of Russian in its various regions and changed its spelling of the city to Kiyev, would we have to move the article again? Seems like a silly argument. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well what goes in the minds of certain Ukrainian government officials I would not take kindly to explain on this talk page and that's the main argument of Ukrainization. Of course suppose Russian becomes also a state language (which is quite possible given the recent SMS referendum and the opinion polls showing support for Parties that do currentely exhibit Russian as second official language), it will not change anything since Kiev is still the most widespread spelling in the world. --Kuban Cossack 01:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, this debate takes more than half of all the article's related discussion and archives. Please see the message on top of this page about checking the archives first. Should we start a subwage of this talk on the issue? Like Talk:Kiev/naming issue. Or maybe someone would write an article English spelling of the capital of Ukraine whose talk will be used for all this? This is all discussed and settled for now. Let's discuss other article's improvements. --Irpen 01:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I am a new person at Wickipedia, made first edits a few days ago. My interest here for now is confined to Ukraine. Having read a good deal of various parts of the Kyiv vs Kiev debate here, I do not agree with those supporting the spelling "Kiev", and to that effect, I also do not agree in the slightest with what appears to be the current Wickipedia policy for resolving such issues (i.e., using "the prevailing usage form of a word in English"). There are strong reasons why I think this is not a sensible policy, and there are even stronger arguments for using Kyiv and not Kiev; but for now I am not going to go into that. My question now is procedural: to help save my time searching through all the rules and guides of Wickipedia, can someone please tell me what is the formal procedure that one would have to follow to change the spelling of "Kiev" to "Kyiv"? Your answer is much appreciated. Please note that I've seen the mentioning of some poll that was carried out here, and comments saying that the issue "is closed for now". My question is exactly about how to re-open this issue, conduct a new poll preceded by a new debate etc etc - a mechanism that can, procedurally, lead to this change.

Thank you,

Serhiy 12:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Serhiy. As you probably already understood by now, "Kiev" spelling is used per Misplaced Pages's "use English" guideline. If you are really serious in your desire to have it amended, a good starting point for you will be Misplaced Pages:How to create policy, which should take care of most of your procedural questions. You may also review the Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English), which will provide additional information as to why the things are the way they are. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 17:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Kyiv appear on the internet

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

• www.timeanddate.com
• Oracle and TopCoder during new user registration
• The Weather Underground, Inc.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages would be very much appreciated. Please check the Ukraine portal for things you can do. --Irpen 16:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Unassessed Ukraine articles
• Unknown-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles