Category talk:Kyiv

Yet another Kyiv/Kiev

Any particular reason this category is not called Category:Kiev city? From the articles that are included I do not believe the scope of the category is limited to post-1991 subjects (inclusion of Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev looks especially inconsistent).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 22:00, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

As you know, Kyiv's name hasn't changed in 1,000 years. It appears a strict interpretation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is being applied here:

If there is no commonly-used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language

Although I didn't name this category, I support the position. I don't think it makes sense to create separate categories for "Kiev" during the period when Russian may have been considered native, and "Kyiv" for articles about things since Ukrainian independence.

There was majority support for a different application of the naming convention in the huge debate and poll held about the title for Kiev. I hope no one has the enthusiasm to revive that, but I suppose it's inevitable. —Michael Z. 2005-02-17 21:33 Z

No, this time I am not actually proposing to use separate categories for "Kyiv" and "Kiev" as applied to different time periods (although I see how my original comment can easily be interpreted that way). I was merely curious why the category should say "Kyiv" while the main article is plainly and visibly called "Kiev". I was saying this before, and I will repeat it again here—whatever the Ukrainians want to call their capital city, is fine with me (not that they would care what I think, of course). What I am worried about is maintaining consistency across Wikipedia. If you manage to hold a poll on the name of the city and by some miracle convince everyone to use "Kyiv" consistently, I'll be the first busily replacing the instances of "Kiev" with the new variant. At this point of time, however, the main article is called "Kiev", and I see no reason to use different spelling for any other reason that to mention that "Kyiv" is what the Ukrainians prefer their capital to be called in English now. By no means I want to offend anyone, even "slightly". I have relatives who live in Ukraine, by the way, and I have no reasons to engage in what some see as a personal vendetta of sorts for the country I actually happen to like and visit fairly often. This is purely a consistency-related inquiry. "Kiev" is in fact a commonly-used English name, and until the time it goes away, let's use it.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 22:02, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Cool. I was also trying not to sound too controversial. In my opinion Kiev is not an English name, but a (widely, but not universally used) transliteration from Russian. It appears that Ukrainian transliterations of all other Ukrainian cities' names have become broadly accepted, with little debate, in most current authorities such as encyclopedias, atlases, even the press (of course, history sources are more resistant to this change than others). Surprisingly, even the Ukrainian Kharkiv and L'viv are seeing wide usage. Here's the debatable point of my position: the resistance to adopting Kyiv is not because of Kiev's Englishness, but merely inertia due to the city being so much more well-known than others.

I've decided to take the position that consistency started going out the window in 1991, as demonstrated by the increasing visibility of names like this category's Dynamo Kyiv and FC Obolon Kyiv. Therefore, I'm for testing the waters on the acceptance of Kyiv elsewhere (I'll endure the inevitable assertions that I'm misguided in this). —Michael Z. 2005-02-17 23:05 Z

I am not sure that "testing acceptance" is a very good idea. After all, Wikipedia is not a tool to promote new conventions; it is supposed to mirror whatever conventions are already established out there. "Kyiv" name may be gaining some acceptance, but it is by no means significant at this point of time. Try visiting your local grocery store (I assume you live in North America) and find "chicken Kyiv" on sale. It's not there, but there is a pretty good chance that "chicken Kiev" is.

It was my understanding that the community decision was to not use "Kyiv" until a google search for "Kyiv" returns at least as many results as a search for "Kiev". I am merely trying to remind of it here. I do not see a problem in using "Kyiv" in compound structures like "Dynamo Kyiv", especially when they refer to a current phenomenon; but for older, more traditional names it is just more consistent to use the variant that's already established, unless the community vote clearly states otherwise (which it currently does not).

I don't know if this rant convinces you of anything, but I at least hope that you understand why I resist using "Kyiv" so much, especially in this particular case.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

New category suggested

Guys, I suggest a category for the neighborhoods pages of Kyiv. We already have around 15 such articles & counting, so they start to litter our parent category. What do you think? AlexPU 17:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course. Why not a cat? But please no tricks with names. Let's not confuse readers. Category:Neighborhoods and raions of Kiev city please. --Irpen 21:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Back to cat name

Gentlemen, I would like to see this category under the "Kiev city" name for the sake of consistensy if not any other. We have "Neighborhoods and raions of Kiev city", "Natives of Kiev" categories. Finally, we have "Kiev" itself as an article, at least for now. OTOH, we have this "Kyiv city" and until recently a smaller "History of Kyiv city" category, which I recategorized last week. I intend to do the same with this one. Let's make a better encyclopedia by making it consistent

And a word to those who know for who this word is. As soon as (and if), Kyiv evolves into the prevailing English usage, I will not object to changing the category names and the article name too. Those who are here long enough remember that I voted for Kharkov → Kharkiv, Lugansk → Luhansk and other similar page moves. I stressed many times, that anyone is free to use whatever name they feel like in their web-pages and books they write. Encyclopedia, OTOH, being a reference book, should just reflect the situation rather than be used to affect one. What name is "correct" is a meaningless debate because both of them are. The question is what name to use and there is an agreement to use Kiev at Wikipedia for now. Please, no flames. --Irpen 20:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

This is all fine. The problem is, no one has yet changed this policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Ukrainian_names. The policy reads: "For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used. For historic reasons, many names are also presented in Russian, Polish, etc." Until you change the policy, please don't change any article following this policy. Thanks!--Andrew Alexander 01:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The cat rename has been voted and approved unanimously. Sorry you missed it by your vote won't have changed the outcome. You would have to bring a bunch from outside forums again. --Irpen 02:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

What you were referring to is a secondary rule that speaks only about the transliteration. That is we have to have a system that would choose between Mykolayiv, Mykolaiv or Mykolajiv.

The primary rule, underlying the ones derived from it is here Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Quote from there reads:

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.

--Irpen 02:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to rename from "Kiev city" to "Kiev"

The word "city" is redundant in the category name, as it's the main meaning of the word "Kiev". As of now there are 34 subcategories in Category:Capitals_in_Europe. Except Kiev, all other subcategories are named as "London", "Paris", "Rome", that is without the word "city" attached to it. Only Kiev subcategory is listed as "Kiev city”.--Anonymous

I agree. I always found the "city" weird here but I thought it's for a reason. If there is none, why keep it?

Russian won

For about a decade mainstream Western media spelled it Kiiv. What happened? Why did everyone revert to Russian spelling?--74.57.167.219 (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)