Wikipedia

Talk:Kyiv/Archive 7

< Talk:Kyiv
(Redirected from Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive 16)
Latest comment: 4 years ago by 118.96.188.179 in topic Move review
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Requested move 1 July 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago382 comments98 people in discussion

The result of the move request was: not moved. Procedural close due to offwiki canvassing. I am also enacting a provisional move moratorium of 2 years. Having this perennial request listed even every year is too much. I'm not sure about previous moratoriums, so some adjustments to this one are possible. If the Arbitration Committee chooses to examine this, I will of course defer to their respective decision. El_C 15:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: Since this was a scheduled move request, a new one will take place soon, before the moratorium comes into effect. El_C 16:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Second update: the matter is now before the Arbitration Committee. These proceedings are suspended pending their decision. El_C 11:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Dicussion unsuspended. Please feel free to mark new or dormant account with the {{spa}} tag to further aid the closer. My thinking is that this discussion should remain open longer than the usual one week, but I'll leave that at the discretion of the respective closer. El_C 17:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Note to closer

Move moratorium length has been set for one year. Note now redundant. El_C 16:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Please give me a heads up before closing so that I could resolve the matter of the moratorium's length. It is important this is accomplished before a decision is undertaken. Thanks. El_C 01:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Why? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
To reduce any potential angst related to the RM decision itself. El_C 02:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The length of a moratorium doesn't need some sort of consensus and so if you feel it important to announce in advance, I would suggest you just announce it. I mean in one sense you already did when you suspended the RM originally. bradv might be right that if the RM is closed as moving to Kyiv disruption will die down (that's certainly the argument he has made as a participant). Or he might not be and a moratorium will help the change settle in. But if the RM closes as no consensus or as staying at Kiev then repeated discussions will definitely be attempted and they are disruptive so a moratorium is appropriate. I support your feeling that such an action is helpful but think it should just happen rather than potentially interfere/hold-up the close of this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Struck owing to a moratorium already being in place. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Certainly, I will do my best to avoid that from happening. El_C 02:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
El C, I disagree with this. The outcome of this RM has to be a factor in whether or not there is a moratorium. Moratoriums should only be used in response to disruption, and only if absolutely necessary. In this case, if the article moves, the potential for disruption changes. And if it closes without a consensus, the likelihood of new information being presented that requires a new discussion is increased. We can't continue to use move moratoriums simply as a procedural hoop to prevent or stifle discussion, nor should we be using the threat of a moratorium as a way to influence the discussion. In fact, all of the comments below that object to the move simply because they don't want to hear the question should be discarded by the closer. – bradv🍁 02:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, noted. But I disagree. I actually think it's key that the two matters are kept separate rather than influencing one another. That is exactly what I am aiming to avoid. Otherwise, I have no opinion about what the closer should or should not disregard. El_C 02:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
By way of example, consider this discussion, which I closed quite some time ago. There had been countless RM's on that article, and several lengthy move moratoriums. As it turns out, the article was just at the wrong title, and fixing that made the disruption stop (I don't believe there has been an RM since). Incidentally, in closing that discussion I had to ignore all the "oh no not again" votes and simply count the policy-based arguments that were presented. If I hadn't done that, perhaps they would still be fighting. I think there are some parallels to be drawn here. – bradv🍁 02:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. Indeed, that may well be so. El_C 02:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Chairman is another recent example like that; and the well known Hillary Rodham Clinton and Yoghurt. Lev!vich 03:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the line of Tulsa race massacre, actually. It is a perennial tendency, I would argue. But this is an especially acute case. El_C 03:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, definitely a perennial tendency, and in the real world, too. Unsatisfied people will continue to complain until they're either satisfied or convinced that their complaints are hopeless. We know we have consensus for something when everybody shuts up about it. "Consensus is what most will agree to and most of the rest will tolerate." Consensus is when most losers agree to lose. As long as there are repeated RMs with significant support, it's a sign that most losers are not agreeing to lose, i.e., there isn't consensus for the status quo.
The other thing to think about is editor turn-over. How many editors who participated in this RM participated in 2019? How many who participated in 2019 participated in 2018? And so forth. If it's a new group of editors each time, it's not in any way disruptive to have the repeated discussions. To the contrary, it's productive, as we get fresh voices to look at updated data. Yes, for some editors who have been participating in every discussion for the past ten years, it can seem repetitive and frustrating. Those who feel that way should stop participating. I don't understand why the rest of the world should be prohibited from discussion the title of this article because a few people who have decided to participate in ten discussions about the title of this article are sick of participating in discussions about the title of this article. That seems like catering to a self-selecting few and the expense of everyone else, particularly newcomers. Lev!vich 03:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
This isn't really the space to discuss that in-depth. But suffice to say that strong feelings on the matter are likely to result in constant RMs, which may risks RM fatigue. I think it's best to pace ourselves when it comes to a rename of such import. El_C 03:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 August 2020

MOVED
Rough consensus that "Kyiv" is the better title given usage in reliable, English-language sources. An extended summary/rationale prefaces the discussion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I did a rough headcount and the spread is ~50 supports to about ~30 opposes, but since this is not a vote, we need to determine how participants weighed the relevant arguments.

The main reason given for opposing the move was WP:COMMONNAME, and some editors expressed that nothing had changed since the last move request. Participants pointed out that since the last move request, a number of style guides for reliable, English-language sources have changed their guidance from "Kiev" to "Kyiv", and that the previous consensus--"Kiev" is the most common name--should be reevaluated. Some editors go further and point out that even if the opposition is correct about "Kiev" being most frequent, the demonstrated trend and common sense suggests that Kyiv will take that spot in the near future.

Participants in favor of the move also cited WP:COMMONNAME, but made two different arguments. The first is similar to the opposition argument: [preferred spelling here] is the most commonly used variant in reliable, English-language publications and [preferred spelling here] should therefore be the article title. To resolve this, editors presented evidence for their position in the form of style guides, newspaper articles, websites, search trends, and other documents linked throughout the debate. Participants generally weighted style guides and newspaper articles more heavily while raising issues with search engine tests. Given the disputes and commentary, participants did not come to a consensus on what is the most frequent spelling in reliable sources.

The second line of argument by supporters citing COMMONNAME focused on what to do when there is more than one common name. Editors contend that the debate above provides evidence for two common names, and thus (per COMMONNAME) we should consider criteria other than frequency to figure out which name is better. Participants appealed to various policies and guidelines, but the ones brought up most frequently were WP:MODERNPLACENAME and WP:NAMECHANGES. Editors in support of the move pointed out that these policies recommend using the more recent name when deciding between two common names, and so we should prefer "Kyiv".

In general, participants found the arguments for "Kyiv" stronger than those for "Kiev". Both sides cited WP:COMMONNAME as supporting their position, but editors in support of the move justified their position with a wider variety of policies and rationales. Participants found the COMMONNAME argument advanced by opposes to be weak, and this is reflected in a number of comments as well as the 2-to-1 support-oppose split. Conversely, a number of support rationales were not seriously challenged, and editors in opposition generally did not convince others that their interpretation of COMMONNAME was the correct one. So given the discussion, there is a rough consensus that the article should be moved to Kyiv. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


Original move request 1 July 2020: Kiev → Kyiv – Since October 2019 when the 9 months ban/moratorium on requesting to change the name of the article from Kiev to Kyiv was established, the following updates have happened (per Atlantic Council's article from October 21, 2019 entitled Kyiv not Kiev: Why spelling matters in Ukraine’s quest for an independent identity, "A number of global heavyweights have recently adopted the Ukrainian-language derived 'Kyiv' as their official spelling for the country’s capital city, replacing the Russian-rooted 'Kiev'"). Specifically, a couple of changes have happened: 1) all major English publications that used their own stylebook have made updates to their styleguides and now use Kyiv spelling, 2) all major English publications that use standard stylebooks (e.g., Associated Press Stylebook or Canadian Press Stylebook) are now following recent updates in those styleguides and are now using Kyiv, 3) IATA has switched to Kyiv and therefore all international airports have updated their English spelling to Kyiv, 4) BGN has switched to Kyiv and, therefore, all major geographical bodies followed suite and are now using Kyiv and, lastly, 5) The Library of Congress has switched to Kyiv and, therefore, all major library organizations followed suite and are now using Kyiv.

Below is a selection of a few of those major updates:

Update to move request 30 August 2020: All of the recent changes of media organizations switching to Kyiv spelling, as mentioned by the Atlantic Council and as listed in this RM, are documented in great detail at Talk:Kiev/sources; this RM lists a selection of a few of those major updates. (Also details of the 9 months ban/moratorium on requesting to change the name of the article from Kiev to Kyiv that was in place since October 2019 till June 2020 can be found here and here)--73.75.115.5 (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (July)

  • Oppose This was completely predictable, both in terms of its timing, but also in terms of its failure to address common usage. It lists a variety of style guides, but utterly fails to indicate whether or not those style guides have had any influence on actual usage, which is the measurement that Wikipedia uses to gauge "common usage". You have to prove that usage has changed. You don't prove usage by simply listing all the people who say "you should do this". You have to actually show that English speakers are paying attention to the "experts" and changing their usage. You've proven nothing other than the "experts" are talking about changing. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Let's test this new awareness of "Kyiv" out with the simplest of metrics, a Google search.
It doesn't seem that actual usage has changed much. Reuters changed officially changed spelling on the 12th, but here are 4560 results of "Kiev -Kyiv -chicken Reuters" just in the last week.
You have to prove your point with actual usage not dictates from "on high". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
So let's now fine-tune the example from Reuters to just News using the same search criteria for the last week:
  • "Kiev -Kyiv -chicken Reuters" (last week, News): 894 results
  • "Kyiv -Kiev -Dynamo Reuters" (last week, News): 564 results
It seems that actual usage at Reuters is still about 1.5 to 1 in favor of "Kiev" in the News department.
At the AP the situation isn't much different.
The same is true if I search for all News over the last week.
So nothing has changed in terms of actual usage in the last six months. In the news departments of the English-speaking world usage of "Kiev" over "Kyiv" is still about 2 to 1 even though the style guides are telling them to use "Kyiv". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
1) RE Reuters News results
Google search results are incredibly sensitive to 1) the time of the day you do the search, 2) Language preferences in Google, 3) IP location from which you search. Also you you used only -chicken and forgot to add -Dynamo) Using US as location, and Ukrainian as the language and adding both -chicken and -Dynamo I just got quite a different result for Reuters (with Kyiv beating out Kiev by about 50%):--73.75.115.5 (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Kiev -Kyiv -chicken -Dynamo Reuters" (last week, News): 509 results
  • "Kyiv -Kiev -chicken -Dynamo Reuters" (last week, News): 706 results
2) RE AP News results
Google search results are incredibly sensitive to 1) the time of the day you do the search, 2) Language preferences in Google, 3) IP location from which you search. Also you you used different exclusion flags for you 'Kiev' search and 'Kyiv' search (only -chicken in one case and only -Dynamo in the other). Using US as location, and Ukrainian as the language and adding both -chicken and -Dynamo I just got quite a different result for AP (with roughly 1-to-1 ratio, but Kiev beating out Kyiv slightly by about 30%):--73.75.115.5 (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Kiev -Kyiv -chicken -Dynamo Reuters" (last week, News): 984 results
  • "Kyiv -Kiev -chicken -Dynamo Reuters" (last week, News): 685 results
3) RE All News results
Google search results are incredibly sensitive to 1) the time of the day you do the search, 2) Language preferences in Google, 3) IP location from which you search. Also you you used different exclusion flags for you 'Kiev' search and 'Kyiv' search (only -chicken in one case and only -Dynamo in the other). Using US as location, and Ukrainian as the language and adding both -chicken and -Dynamo I just got quite a different result for all news (with roughly 1-to-1 ratio, but Kyiv beating out Kiev slightly by about 10%):--73.75.115.5 (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Those numbers are completely fake. The real search result totals are only on the last page of search. (How can Taivo not know this after discussing this here for literally years?) See WP:GOOGLE. The number of results returned when I click on his links above are 190:184, 24:31, 12:12, 229:197 (Google will probably give you slightly different numbers). These searches are also full of foreign-language results, and should be restricted to English-language results. The supposed Reuters and AP searches are full of “photos from Reuters,” and don’t indicate what they’re supposed to indicate. —Michael Z. 2020-07-01 15:55 z
I agree with @Mzajac: that results from TaivoLinguist are fake, made up and manipulative (using one exclusion -chicken in one case and a different one -Dynamo in the other). As I clearly showed above in all examples, except for AP, Kyiv wins over Kiev by 10% to 50%.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
And those results are a red herring. Article titles are to be based on reliable English-language sources (WP:TITLE), and independent, reliable English-language sources (WP:COMMONNAME). Raw Google search results might be helpful, but result counts do not tell us this. WP:WIAN: “Raw counts from Google must be considered with extreme caution, if at all.” —Michael Z. 2020-07-01 18:12 z
User:BilCat recently suggested in this discussion User_talk:Mzajac#Systematic_bias that the only reason some "old timers" cling to Kiev is because of WP:Systemic bias. So I went ahead and looked at various comments in Talk:Kiev/naming archives from pro-Kiev editors over multi-year period to see if there was indeed any evidence to claim that there might be some WP:Systemic bias that prevents people from accepting that in 2019-2020 all reliable sources have switched to Kyiv and therefore all enwiki naming guidelines (i.e., WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NAMECHANGES, WP:PLACE, WP:MODERNPLACENAME, WP:WIAN) today unequivocally support a change of this article title to Kyiv. And what I saw really upset me: for instance, when I looked at comments from about a year ago from one of the editors (who has been probably the most vocal commenter on Talk:Kiev in all years, based on what I saw in archives), I saw that he said things like The only major U.S. newspaper that has switched to Kyiv is the Miami Herald and it isn't even near the top of the list. The New York Times and Los Angeles Times both use Kiev. And the most popular travel sites (Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz) send travelers to "Kiev, Ukraine (KBP-Borispol Intl.)" or "Kiev, Ukraine (IEV-All Airports)". (Apr 2019) (diff) and "Kyiv" is overtly rejected by the BBC style guide (link in the article). It's only used in proper names (such as "Kyiv Dynamo") in the New York Times. It's never used as the name of the city on any of the dozen English-language travel booking sites that I consult regularly (I buy tickets for myself or my family to Kyiv at least once a year). The American Board of Geographic Names lists "Kiev" as the "conventional name", a term they use for "commonly used name". (diff). And what do we see now? - all arguments that that user used a year ago are no longer valid (i.e., travel sites/airports switched to Kyiv after IATA's Oct 2019 switched to Kyiv; all major English newspapers, such as the quoted The New York Times and Los Angeles Times, switched to Kyiv in 2019; all major English styleguides, such as the quoted BBC Styleguide; switched to Kyiv in 2019; American Board of Geographic Names stopped listing "Kiev" as the "conventional name" in June 2019, and instead started listing only "Kyiv" as the "conventional name"), and yet they (as well as other pro-Kiev editors on this talkpage) seemingly instantly forgot that they made all those arguments a year ago and now instead switched to using new arguments forcused around Google Ngram/Trends/Searches (which should never be used in discussions like this for the many reasons described at WP:GOOGLELIMITS and Wikipedia:Overreliance upon Google). I guess I just wish there was less hypocrisy here on enwiki and people at least were honest with themselves (and rest of enwiki community) and transparently said in their Oppose vote that they support Kiev spelling because of their own long-standing WP:Systemic bias...--73.75.115.5 (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
User:TaivoLinguist thank you for deleting (diff) the comment where you were casting aspirations on me, that were completely unwarranted.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Anon IP, you are in no position to comment on completely unwarranted aspersions directed at another editor. Barkeep had to force you to change my name above to "a vocal editor" in your unwarranted accusation of WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Can you both give it a rest, please? It's a little tiring for someone to keep having to collapse/move this after it descends into off-topic discussion (which it inevitably will after a few personal remarks are lobbed in). Such spirals are not helpful to the closer. You've made your points more than thoroughly; I don't think any further comments help this discussion at all, unless you have genuinely new remarks to add. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
"Reliable sources" of English usage (the News in this case) use "Kiev" two to one over "Kyiv". The style guides suggest usage, but the actual news writers ignore them twice as often as they follow them. And you clearly didn't read the second major bullet of WP:WIAN where it says that news media are an important source of information. My search criteria were careful and properly constructed to show just News media, just within the most recent time frame, and using the proper search terms. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I did read it. News sources aren't the only reliable sources regarding this. Authoritative references namely topographical databases and style guides should also be considered and for the most part use Kyiv.Blindlynx (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is worth mentioning that several of the supporters, including the OP, either have very few edits total, or at least very few recent edits. Given the history here, this is at best suspicious. We should consider that this discussion may well be being canvassed inappropriately.
I find a few of the comments here thoroughly unconvincing.
  • The fact that the Ukrainian government made a request is irrelevant to us. Usage by organisations from non-English-speaking countries like the Kyiv Post is irrelevant to us. And, while WP:NAMECHANGES certainly applies, note that (a) the official change was quite a long time ago now and (b) TaivoLinguist's evidence comes from the last couple of weeks.
  • I see no issue with being "inconsistent" with the names of articles like Kryvyi Rih, since most English speakers will have never heard of the place. And I note with interest that Zaporizhia is used as an example, given that the transcription according to the official standard is Zaporizhzhia. We'll be "inconsistent" with Zaporizhia whatever we do.
  • Arguments based on situations in China and India that aren't parallels to this one are as specious as they always have been.
  • I note that the IP objects to removing "chicken" and "Dynamo" from search results. In reality, sources that use "Kiev" generally also refer to "Dynamo Kyiv", and sources that use "Kyiv" will often still use "chicken Kiev". It is more useful to include only results that refer to the city, not to things named after the city.
  • The claim that Kiev is POV would imply that Kyiv is equally POV. If one is more POV than the other, then Kyiv has the greater POV because it's the neologism. After all, while Kiev may have begun life as a Russian transcription, it became the standard English-language name for the city in neutral sources. The question that we are asking is whether there is clear evidence that that has changed.
    • In particular, the claim, Favoring the Russian transliteration of a Ukrainian place name reinforces the Russian pronunciation of the name and perpetuates a Russian colonialist mindset that denies Ukrainian autonomy is not an argument for NPOV. Because it treats "Kiev" as "the Russian transliteration of a Ukrainian place name", rather than an English word, and is based solely on Ukrainians' reactions to that word. It is implicitly an argument that we should be writing to appease Ukrainian people, i.e. from a Ukrainian POV.
    • The argument for WP:MODERNPLACENAME in the same comment is irrelevant since it's far from obvious that WP:MODERNPLACENAME doesn't imply Kiev.
So, having dismissed most of the arguments raised for the change, I turn to the IP's argument and Taivo's counterargument, which really is the crux of the matter. There is no point in claiming that usage isn't changing, at least in writing. My impression is that if current trends continue, the most common name is likely to change soon, and we may well want to move this article within the next year or two.
But what decided it for me was a quote from another comment above: When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others - particularly given that it was coupled with WP:NPOV. Even if I accept that Kyiv is the most common (and that is not clear to me), it has problems. It seems to have no standard pronunciation that meets the phonological requirements of the English language. And a lot of the arguments in favour seem to boil down to supporting the Ukrainian POV.
But this is a close call IMO. Kahastok talk 18:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The core argument is that the majority of reputable sources such as style guides and geographic databases use Kyiv. 19:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blindlynx (talk • contribs)
Kahastok, just to be clear, Kiev and Kyiv are not English words. They are transliterations of the Cyrillic - Kiev is a transliteration of the Russian Cyrillic approximation to Київ, because Ukrainian Cyrillic has additional letters including the ї in Київ. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear, "Kiev" hasn't been a transliteration for centuries. Hundreds of years of usage made it an assimilated word. Writers didn't have to stop and think "well, this Cyrillic letter corresponds to this Latin letter" each time they went to use it. They just used the word. --Khajidha (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes - this is precisely the point. Kahastok talk 20:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom. I am amazed how people push the usage thing. Wikipedia lately has turned into "this is how lemmings call things" instead of "this is how things are called". This is lame and irritating. I presume if people still called Instanbul Byzantium, then the article in Wikipedia would be called Byzantium? This is nonsense. Mikus (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The presented evidence seems like a big red herring that does not actually prove that current common usage has changed from "Kiev" to "Kyiv". Indeed, while this may constitute evidence that such a change may happen in the future, it does not mean it has already happened. A simple comparison of both terms in Google Trends show "Kiev" overwhelmingly preferred over "Kyiv" in search results (even in Ukraine, with Kiev comprising 71% of the cummulative searches for both terms). In English speaking countries (the ones we must pay attention to as per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:NCGN), Kiev is still most common with no less than ~85% of results. Some other cities have been brought as examples for the change, but those do constitute examples on why such move cannot happen just yet: Mumbai/Bombay, Beijing/Peking and Kolkata/Calcutta, all show a change in common usage from the previous Bombay/Peking/Calcutta to the new Mumbai/Beijing/Kolkata. This has not happened for Kiev/Kyiv. As per WP:MPN: Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage. The current common global usage is still Kiev, so that's the name we should prefer for the article.
On a side note, Kahastok makes a convincing case for preserving the current title and I share his concerns about a possible canvassing taking place in this discussion. This seems a clear political issue in Ukraine, and many of the support !votes look like POVish pile-ons centered on how Wikipedia must seemingly right a great wrong with the city's name, as the Ukrainian government seems to be actively pressing for the "old" Kiev spelling to fall out of use. I must note that Wikipedia, as an independent online encyclopedia, cannot take any side on this issue nor serve as a soapbox to promote any particular political cause. We must limit ourselves to reflect what sources and common usage dictate, and on this issue it's clear Kiev is still the most commonly-used term for the city. Impru20talk 19:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia's preference of common name instead of official name is idiotic. This is not just about Kiev/Kyiv, but, say cassette tape instead of compact cassette. Wikipedia became the bastion of illiterate and uninformed. Mikus (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Go and get a consensus for changing the current Wikipedia's policy on WP:COMMONNAME if you don't like it, but saying that it's "idiotic" only because of not agreeing with it won't grant you the upper hand in any discussion. Impru20talk 20:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
And also, who the heck calls it a compact cassette? That may be the technical term but it's been called a cassette tape by everyone since I was using them in the 1970s when it surpassed my old 8-track tape player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I do recognize that this topic is prime real estate for Ukrainian trolls, canvassed for this purpose. It would not surprise me at all if the sons of the motherland are responding to either an official call or an influential voice in the in-language media to troll Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, User:TaivoLinguist. Can you tell us which Wikipedians you’re labelling “Ukrainian trolls,” or are all Ukrainians “trolls,” or is it just that everyone who disagrees with you on this issue must be a member of some trollish nation driven by their genes or citizenship? Your remark is deeply offensive and it’s already encouraging others to take up the call. Please reconsider your remark. —Michael Z. 2020-07-01 21:59 z
"and it’s already encouraging others to take up the call." Really? And how are these "others" finding out about these comments? Sounds like you just proved he's right! - BilCat (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, User:BilCat. Are you implying that Taivo has been canvassing non-Wikipedians to come here and chime in to agree with his comment? Are you defending the comment? What exactly are you implying? —Michael Z. 2020-07-01 22:58 z
Uh, no. You were implying that Taivo's comments would cause more people to come here to oppose him because they were offended. But how would they know about his comments if they weren't being canvassed off-wiki? Hmmm? - BilCat (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I wasn’t. You misunderstood. —Michael Z. 2020-07-02 01:39 z
Yeah, I think they are and will be coming out of the woodwork.. as if the entire country of Ukraine has marked this day on the calendars. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Like the IP who started this--nothing whatsover on Wikipedia until he admits to gathering his evidence "in preparation" for the big day. He came here for one purpose and one purpose only. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, well, as far as I see the IP nominator had this post prepared since at least 29 June, and the initial filling of this RM was almost automatic once it was 1 July, with a "TBA" comment in anticipation of the copy-paste. It would seem as if the RM came just because of the lifting of the moratorium, rather than because of an actual change in common usage having happened or being demonstrable. Impru20talk 21:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Impru20, so what? If he hadn't, I would have. We are lagging behind serious sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
JzG, it should be noted that comments from 1 July like this one you're replying to (this is, from two-and-a-half months ago) have been vastly superseded by subsequent events and by further comments afterwards. Impru20talk 19:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
so much for assume good faith... blindlynx (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:AGF means that good faith should be assumed, but obviously evidence may point to the contrary. As of currently, all evidence points to this RM having been filled because of the moratorium having expired, not because of any sensible new reason about any change in the common usage of Kiev/Kyiv that may bring a different result to previous discussions (specially when even Wikipedia's policy on WP:COMMONNAME is being dubbed as "idiotic" because it does not bend particularly well to the the cause of having this moved to "Kyiv").
Note that the previous RM (which resulted in a strong consensus against any move) took place between 26 October and 3 November 2019. If you check the dates of the links provided to support this proposal, you'd see that almost all of them are previous to the last RM, and none of them revolve around the actual common usage of the proposed term, which is the issue that, ultimately, is preventing all these RMs from succeeding once and once and once and once again. I believe it's nigh to disruptive and an abuse of process to open a RM on a very conflicting issue just because you can, on the exact moment the moratorium is lifted, rather than because of there being any new sensible reason that can sway the community's consensus in a different direction. Attempting to bore the hell out of all opposers until there is no one left to oppose what seems a very clear attempt to right what is perceived as an historical wrong is not how Wikipedia works. Impru20talk 22:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
a good number of reliable sources have changed since the moratorium was put in place. it's reached the point where almost every style guide and place names registry uses Kyiv. Just because people waited for the moratorium to expire to propose the change does not invalidate good faith. blindlynx (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Of the provided sources (which btw, do not prove a change in common usage) only four are from after the previous RM, and just two are from 2020. Nonetheless, stop the charade: this RM has been set up in Twitter to canvass people into having this article moved. That pretty much invalidates the whole RM, since it's been a conscious attempt to game and disrupt Wikipedia by creating the illusion of a strong consensus for the move, when never has been one. Impru20talk 01:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Google Trends is a red herring. It is a gauge of search queries and not “search results,” and neither of those have a direct relation to “prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources” per WP:COMMONNAME, which also advises against using a web search. Impru20’s evidence is irrelevant to the tests suggested by the guidelines they refer to, and their argument is confused. —Michael Z. 17:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Google Trends is explicitly acknowledged as valid for finding the most commonly-searched name of a topic under Wikipedia guidelines. Nonetheless, since July you have been dismissing everything supporting the claim for "Kiev" as either a "red herring" or "fake", so I'm not particularly surprised by this response. It should be noted that WP:COMMONNAME does not advice against neither Google Trends nor Ngram (much to the contrary), but generic web searches. Impru20talk 17:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Impru20, WP:GOOGLE says Google Trends is useful to judge popularity. WP:COMMONNAME doesn’t mention popularity, but “reliable English-language sources.” It says “a search engine may help to collect” data about a number of things that do not include popularity. Google Trends may relate to the criteria of recognizability and naturalness, but it is far from the way the the guideline recommends to judge these things. And please, let’s talk about the question, and not evaluate what kind of person I am based on my posts here. Thanks. —Michael Z. 18:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME literally says Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). Google Trends is useful for finding out that prevalence as outlined under Wikipedia guidelines, because it's explicitly not the "web search"-type that is discouraged by WP:GOOGLE. I was not "evaluating yourself", but your arguments: you have resorted to the "it's fake/it's a red herring"-sort of arguments to attempt to discredit those sources that disprove the claim for "Kyiv", so it's perfectly fine to evaluate that. If I had to evaluate yourself, I'd say that it's unhelpful for you to acknowledge pursuing some sort of agenda on this issue, or the continuous tag teaming with that troublesome IP, but I just got sick of it and just wish for this RM to end (hopefully, in a way that is truly respectful of Wikipedia's guidelines and not the result of any off-wiki action or advocacy agenda), so that it stops causing so many headaches to so many people just because some are really intent on getting intense on this topic until it goes their way. Cheers. Impru20talk 20:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, you caught me, Impru20. You identified my disturbing pattern of pointing out fallacious arguments, like the fact that Google Trends shows “what the world is searching for” by counting “search requests,” and has nothing to do with “independent, reliable English-language sources.” I must also confess that after combing my contributions you identified my open admission of my secret agenda to make article names “conform to Wikipedia’s content guidelines.” Congratulations. —Michael Z. 15:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for such a constructive and useful comment, surely one that will be remembered amongst the finest in Wikipedia ever. You left me convinced that it's you who get to decide what constitutes an "independent, reliable English-language source", as the true and only legitimate Protector of Wikipedia, and that surely no one else should even dare to oppose your magnificent argumentative pieces even if evidence points otherwise. Your secret agenda is truly fantastic, and any sources opposing your view are pure waste and no one should even dare to look at these.
Now let us stop the fun: if this is the argumentative level you are going to bring here, I'd rather ask you to stop wasting my time. I wish to get out from this polluted environment and away from the users who made it happen. Thanks. Impru20talk 16:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Impru20 Google Trends does not present information about reliable sources, but about user searches. But are you thinking that it is a WP:reliable source that has made the editorial decision to use the spelling Kiev? I don’t see how, but Google’s GT product does inconsistently use both spellings (drill down to explore by country > Ukraine > Subregion > Kyiv City [and Kyivs'ka oblast] > City > Kiev). And I’m sure you know that Google does have a place-name reference called Google Maps: in my browser it displays “Kyiv/Київ.” —Michael Z. 19:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
You have been told what Wikipedia states about Google Trends, and it's not what you attempted to convey at first. It's a generally-accepted site to review issues such as these where the popularity of a term is at discussion (and yes, it's important because the issue at hand revolves around common usage of the term. GT shows precisely that, as it shows which term is the one most searched for, and thus the one most widely used). You may not like it and may have your opinion on it and that's cool (just like I have my own opinion about the made-up list of cherry-picked pro-Kyiv sources that has been unilaterally edited by the same three pro-Kyiv editors and brought as some sort of universal truth), but it all comes down to the fact that you fallaciously depicted GT as a red herring. I countered that, to which you mockingly replied with sarcasm. From there, we may safely assume that every new "issue" you bring about GT is just made-up (and obviously opinionated) to keep casting doubts upon an otherwise perfectly valid instrument. As said, I won't be having my time wasted on that. Stop pinging me, please. Cheers. Impru20talk 19:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. People here often forget how much Wikipedia shapes common usage nowadays, not just reflects it. Ausir (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Ausir (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
    • That has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on article naming. - BilCat (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Sorry, but no. What you say goes against the second of Wikipedia's five pillars, under which we must explicitly avoid advocacy. Independently of how Wikipedia may be regarded by outside readers, it is not among Wikipedia's goals to "shape common usage"; we only reflect on it. Supporting this move in order to have Wikipedia help influence and raise the visibility of a particular agenda is outrightly contrary to its spirit, and it's worrying that several of the support !votes have been explicit on this motive. Impru20talk 23:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    I've never heard this before from an administrator... basing a move on Wikipedia because Wikipedia "shapes common usage nowadays, not just reflects it." That goes against all we stand for in policy and guidelines. I'm actually shocked at this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not saying it's a goal to shape common usage. Just that it does anyway. I'm not saying the article should be moved in order to shape usage but that the current online usage of the current article name is shaped partly by Wikipedia itself and pretending it doesn't doesn't change it. Ausir (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    That's not true. The page for Turin (which should probably merit a RM someday) is titled like that in Wikipedia as of now, yet current Google Trends show that "Torino" (the official local name) has already vastly surpassed the usage of "Turin". This is not the case for Kiev. So the issue of whether Wikipedia shapes common usage is not only unfortunate under WP's goals, but also of negligible effect, if any (factually, you'll get to this Wikipedia article by typing either Kiev or Kyiv, because of the second being a redirect and being used in-text throughout the article). Impru20talk 00:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - per WP:MPN, and WP:NPOV. Tāwhiwhi (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC) — Tāwhiwhi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Note- new account only edit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
This account was created only four days ago and this one is its first (and so far only) edit. What's going on here? It's been several sleeper accounts already suddenly re-activating to support this RM right now. Impru20talk 00:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – Long overdue. Common usage is Kyiv in reliable sources. Sure, Wikipedia should not lead a name change but it should also not actively stand in the way. Some consideration, however little, should be given to the official name. Whether we like to admit it or not Wikipedia has a large influence. We are like a boulder blocking the stream and complaining about the amount of water flowing. Let's get the fuck out of the way. The most trusted sources have accepted the name change and so should we. Some say that this is advocacy that is not permitted on Wikipedia. Advocating keeping an old name, despite evidence showing a change is needed, is also against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: agree with your points that switching to Kyiv on English WP is long over due, since practically all reliable sources have already switched over the course of 2019-2020. Also, I'm utterly surprised that nobody has mentioned thus far that even the MOST stubborn English encyclopedia in the world - Encyclopedia Britannica switched to Kyiv on November 25, 2019: https://www.britannica.com/place/Kyiv. Let me repeat it, so everyone could hear: even the slowest and most conservative encyclopedia in the world, Britannica, switched to Kyiv spelling a little over half a year ago. If today English Wikipedia doesn't follow in Britannica's footsteps, it would mean there's a series issue with the part of WP community that keeps advocating (against overwhelming evidence) to keep it 'Kiev' by all and every means possible.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    This comment coming from the OP of a RM who has been demonstrated has being set up on Twitter to massively influence a move of this article is almost offensive. At the very least, attempt not to depict Wikipedia as some short of advocate group when it is you who are advocating an agenda. Impru20talk 10:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I added this discussion to WP:CENT. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Roman Spinner and Coffeeandcrumbs, whose boulder metaphor resonates well. If Russia still incorporated Ukraine within its borders, this would be a much tougher question. But the Russians have been gone already for 3 decades, and the indigenous people are telling us what the correct spelling of their city's name is, which is based upon its founder Kyi. The canvassing going on is troubling, but it wouldn't be happening if WP just got with the program already like almost everyone else has. StonyBrook (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just because Kiev is located in Ukraine doesn't mean that we need to use the Ukrainian spelling in English. Dublin is not referred to as Baile Atha Cliath. 2A02:A311:433F:5A80:E10D:F069:4FB0:281E (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC) — 2A02:A311:433F:5A80:E10D:F069:4FB0:281E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Not a fair comparison. It is just a spelling tweak, not an alternate name as in the case of Dublin. And Kiev was the Russian spelling in English, so why is that superior? StonyBrook (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Kiev is easier to spell and pronounce in English. Names of major cities are typically translated, not just transliterated. Moscow, Jerusalem and Cairo are the preferred spellings in English, not Moskva, Yerushalayim/al-Quds and al-Qahira. Also, Kiev is fairly evenly divided as far as the usage of the Russian and Ukrainian languages is concerned. 2A02:A311:433F:5A80:E10D:F069:4FB0:281E (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it is ever so slightly easier to pronounce Kiev. I don't know about the breakdown of usage, but I haven't heard of any significant movement in Russia, Israel or Egypt to get those iconic capitol names changed to the transliterations, but I sure am seeing it here. StonyBrook (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The question is whether the existence of movements seeking to change a name is enough for the Wikipedia name to change. In my opinion it remains the best option just to use whatever name is the most common in English, which still is Kiev. 2A02:A311:433F:5A80:E10D:F069:4FB0:281E (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The most common usage, in English-language reliable sources in 2020, is Kyiv.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
That is simply not true. These sources you post do not reflect a change in common usage, only that some media outlets are making the change from Kiev to Kyiv. This could very well mean that common usage will follow suit in the future, but it hasn't as of currently, which is the issue at discussion right now. Impru20talk 09:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The most common usage in English is Kiev... it is the English spelling of the city. And it's not a question of the pronunciation. No matter how it gets spelled in English, Kiev or Kyiv, the pronunciation will be the same.... key-ev. No one will really pronounce it different just because it's spelled different. Like in the USA, few would pronounce Quebek as Kuh-bek... most will say qwa-bek. It will be said Key-ev for 100 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
"Kiev" isn't a Russian word any more than "Moscow" is. It's the English name of the city and until that simple fact changes, then this question is simply moot. The evidence is unequivocal despite nationalists' best efforts to cherry pick style guides as if they were actual usage data. Requests by the Ukrainian government are important to the State Department and the Foreign Ministry, as well as to any organization that needs institutional permissions and individual visas to work in Ukraine, but irrelevant to Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Aside of the explicit canvassing issues below, I've seen that the Ukrainian government launched a renewed campaign through Twitter on 29 June ([8]), actively pressing organisations (the CNN in this case) into changing the city name's transliteration. The tweet has over 2k likes. This, coupled with the lifting of the moratorium on 1 July and this RM having been planned (and a canvassing organized) through the social networks since several days prior, only adds to the already growing concerns that a particular agenda is being pursued here.
I should once again remind the people involved about WP:ADVOCACY: Despite the popularity of Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox to use for editors' activism, recruitment, promotion, advertising, announcements, or other forms of advocacy. While it'd perfectly logical for the article to be moved to Kyiv once and if common usage shows that such change has happened, Wikipedia cannot be used as a channel to promote or help further such change in common usage, as some editors have explicitly voiced. The move should happen when and if such change happens naturally, but we cannot artificially enforce it ourselves. Impru20talk 10:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - This seems to come down to whether we emphasize the major international organizations, major English-language media outlets part of WP:COMMONNAME or the A search engine may help part. Many of the opposing arguments above seem to take the form of "it doesn't matter if so many organizations formally use Kyiv if they still commonly write Kiev". I err on the side of the former. It's the editorial board of these organizations that I think we should be looking to, not specific instances where employees are lagging behind. That the CBC, BBC, NYT, WaPo, AP, Guardian, Economist, Globe, Reuters, yada yada all say they use Kyiv is important. That one can find google hits to the contrary is secondary. As has been pointed out, Google hits are complicated to qualify given the number of low quality sources, duplicates, and unrelated topics they'll include. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    You mention "That the CBC, BBC, NYT, WaPo, AP, Guardian, Economist, Globe, Reuters, yada yada all say they use Kyiv is important." But is it really when they don't always practice what they preach? I quickly pulled up reuters from today or reuters/NYT this month, and CBC from this month, BBC. The others do the same thing. And that doesn't take into account sources such as Straits Times, etc. Saying you will be using something but not doing it or doing so sporadically means you should not be taking what they say as very important. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    Notwithstanding the fact that the BBC example provided by User:Fyunck(click) is from BBC News in Portuguese (although we are indeed discussing the usage of English language here and not that of Portuguese), a bigger problem is that User:Fyunck(click)'s entire argument is deeply faulty: all of the English media organizations listed above by Rhododendrites have indeed switched to Kyiv spelling during 2019-2020 time frame (as evidenced by their official announcement of that); the fact that a couple of their journalists have not carefully read the Styleguide/Stylebook for their publication, just speaks about the lack of professionalism on their part (and by no means would I call this an intentional "sabotage" of these few journalists (nor would I call them "rogue journalists", as some people here described them), because the the very numbers speak against it: a simple check shows that, for example, on Reuters there were hundreds of articles that used correct Kyiv spelling over the last month of August (and only a couple that incorrectly used Kiev, which represent a mere 2-3% of the entire body of Reuters articles that used Kyiv last month).--73.75.115.5 (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
    But is it really when they don't always practice what they preach? yes. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing

Extended content

I just found out this from earlier on 1 July: The wiki debate on calling Kyiv Kyiv is back on today, anyone wanna help? [9]. This is really disturbing. This Twitter user is currently active in this discussion and has called for other people to intervene and support the Kyiv claim, laying out the ground for this RM to happen since at least 27 June:

  1. Fucking wiki, this is going to be reopened in a few days btw [10]
  2. If you have wiki accounts please please please join in [11]
  3. July 1st [12]

There are several more comments from today, discussing this with other accounts (which are private so I can't see what they say, but they are clearly commenting about us and not in a very nice way): It took me half an hour to be sick of wiki [13], The most vocal editors are always such disengenuous dick heads [14], Tavio is particularly bad :/ [15].

This user has been also interacting with another (declaring himself as pro-Ukrainian) who is currently commenting on the various responses in this discussion ([16], [17], [18], [19]). On the Kiev/Kyiv issue, this account has also claimed that it's impossible to be politically neutral on this subject. either you think institutions like encyclopediae - online or offline - endorse the right of a people to self-determine or you do not. [20]. This person claimed not to have a wiki account, yet he was told, literally, that You should probably make one anyways [21].

This explains why all of these sudden new accounts/sleepers re-activation. Do you think this is funny? This whole POVish-motivated RM is an insult to intelligence and a gross violation of WP:CANVASSING, a fake attempt at attempting to show an illusion of consensus by gathering similarly-minded editors throughout the social networks. The OP should withdraw this RM or else this should probably be brought to WP:ANI so that appropiate actions are taken. This is purely disruptive. Impru20talk 01:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Good work, and the results are not surprising either. I have no respect for those who snipe at us and call us names behind our backs, and then fake outrage here and cry about AGF. This is Gaming the System at its worst. - BilCat (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Very sad, but not unexpected given its past. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
And more. Ausir seems to be involved. Not only a Twitter account under his name did like the tweet in favour of the canvassing ([22]), he also bloated about us not being able to accuse him for this comment because of him being "an ancient admin" ([23]). And he has been discussing this RM with the other people for the whole night! Impru20talk 02:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Edit: Note that Ausir has locked on his Twitter account while I was writing my last comment. Also note that, just in case, I've taken pic captures of the whole conversation if this needs to be brought to an higher stance. I really don't like for this to end badly, but you cannot pretend to come here disrupting Wikipedia and then act as if this wasn't with you. Impru20talk 02:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Edit 2: They seem to have noticed we've spotted their little Twitter conversation and seem to be planning what to do next.([24]). Impru20talk 02:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I did say that no one will be able to accuse me of creating an account only for the sake of this discussion, as some have been accused of here. And yeah, I have been talking about this discussion with a bunch of friends that I've been mutually following for quite a while now. I had no idea discussing public talk page discussions on social media was now disallowed. Ausir (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Canvassing is NOT allowed, and those "bunch of friends" of you were actively promoting for people to participate in a RM you knew you would open on 1 July to support the cause of moving the article to Kyiv. And you can't claim you weren't aware of it because you were giving likes like crazy to these tweets. You read them and supported them. This is textbook off-wiki canvassing. This is very disappointing coming from an "ancient admin". The least I would hope from you is for this little charade of a RM to stop here and now. Impru20talk 02:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, I'm ancient enough that I haven't been particularly active on English Wikipedia as an admin (just making a few edits here and there from time to time, but not following policy discussions and such) since before a page like WP:CANVASSING even existed. I guess you could call me out of touch with current English Wikipedia procedures (I say English specifically, since there is no such policy on Polish Wikipedia, for example). Ausir (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ausir: the CANVASS policy has existed in a form that would prohibit this for 12 years now. If you believe that your knowledge of policies is running that far out of touch, and you're actually running into problems (as opposed to policies you don't know but aren't breaching), I'd have to suggest considering if you should retain your mop. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
You may have seen a time of Wikipedia when WP:CANVASSING was not of application. But it's of application now. And whether you may be familiar with it or not, you must still abide to it (I'm surprised that bringing a bunch of friends here to influence the outcome of a discussion in order to pursue a particular agenda didn't come out as inherently wrong to you, tho). Neither that nor the fact that you may not have been very active as an admin in recent times does justify your actions or those of all the other people involved here. Impru20talk 02:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Casually discussing the Kiev situation among friends on twitter, friends who have no care about commenting here, is fine and dandy. I didn't look at the twitter account so I have no idea what was said. If those people then come here and post like-minded comments then this conversation was canvassed by you. If you have hundreds of followers and post the link and they all come here and tell their own friends it would be horrible for this move request. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, administrator Ausir is not very active here at all. So inactive it's hard to believe he still has an administrator badge. It doesn't excuse any canvassing or his rational that "Wikipedia shapes common usage nowadays, not just reflects it" comment from above, but it helps explain that he is out of touch with rules around here... enough to question his administrator status. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Impru20: because much of the evidence is private/ from off-wiki it would have to go to the Arbitration Committee rather than ANI. If you're not comfortable filing there yourself, you're welcome to send me the material and I'll do it instead. ——Serial # 08:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: To be honest, I wouldn't wish for this to become so ugly unless strictly needed, but I don't know if there is any other way since the whole RM is currently compromised and we can't know how many of the support !votes come from canvassers (we could make a wild guess based on former sleeper accounts/new accounts, but Ausir isn't one of them yet he is still clearly involved. There could be more such cases as well). How can I send the evidence to you?
Also not sure if we should bring this to ANI anyways to get input on what to do with the RM itself, without giving any potentially private evidence, since the canvassing issue has nonetheless been confirmed even by Ausir himself acknowledging discussing this with "a bunch of friends" on Twitter and the posted material is already more than enough to prove such canvassing exists. Impru20talk 09:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • We did have an OUTing incident (assuming Ausir doesn't give his twitter on his userpage) above, and despite his announcing of it, it's unclear if we'd need to go to arbcom with it or not. We'd definitely have to go if any further evidence beyond a connection between username and twitter handle was to be made. I consider this RM heavily damaged - I'm not sure it can viably be closed and enacted (because we get counter-action, it gets hammered on both sides). I advise closing procedurally and discussing how to handle reopening. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:OUTING involves the publication of personal information to harass other people, and this was not what was done here. I happened to find this Twitter discussion by chance. Only after did I saw that a person under his username (it was a public account at the time) was taking part in it, not just posting screenshots of this RM discussion there (to discuss its progress and insult some of us, btw), but also gloating about being an "ancient admin" in Wikipedia (thus, factually, it was him who revealed his identity). Since several of the Twitter accounts were public at the time of the canvassing denounce, their contents could be seen by anyone. No one here cares about how anyone in this discussion is called in real life; the content of that Twitter discussion only became the subject of the complaint because of them calling like-minded people to use their wiki accounts (or creating new ones) to intervene in this RM to support their cause of having the article moved to Kyiv. Nonetheless, considering that such discussion has been made private as a result of the canvassing discovery, I don't have any issues on the edit revisions involving references to Twitter accounts being redacted as soon as possible and bring this to the appropiate venue to preserve privacy as required.
On the RM itself, considering that it did not provide any new information not already discussed on previous RMs, and that it was from its beginning an attempt to game the system and subvert consensus through canvassing, I can't see a conceivable way to solve it. Impru20talk 14:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest that this whole matter (not just the WP:CANVASSing but the move itself) be brought to Arbcom. This RM has been fatally damaged to the point of being non-viable. It should be administratively closed and another moratorium put in place or else another one will be initiated in 5 minutes with the same off-Wiki canvassing poisoning the discussion. Is there an administrator looking on?. That's what had to be done for the issue of how to deal with Macedonia when Greek and Greek-sympathizing editors were flooding every discussion about what to call it with "FYROM". WP:ARBMAC2 and the resulting WP:MOSMAC then became rocks to cling to for about a decade until the real-world situation was resolved. This is a job for objective, uninvolved admins and the Arbitration Committee. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree. However, I'm new to this whole affair, having only intervened in this RM on the issue to date. So, while I can be able to help explaining the canvassing issue, this will probably require someone with knowledge from previous RMs as well to provide context for the moratorium, previous consensus and so on. Impru20talk 14:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey (August)

  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME as evidenced at User:Levivich/Kyiv (another list is at Talk:Kiev/sources). The biggest difference between now and the RMs in 2019 is that at this point in time, just about every single major source uses the spelling "Kyiv", not just in their style guides, but also in their publications. This includes academic and non-academic sources. The comparison is not even close. This was a debate for a long time, but now the debate, in the real world, is over, and everyone is spelling it "Kyiv". We should, too. Lev!vich 18:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    One thing though is you list Kiev/sources. Those may be sources that "say" they have switched to Kyiv, but in practice it's spotty. I just read articles today at Reuters, NYT, and CBC that use Kiev. That list is unreliable and updated by those who prefer Kyiv. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    No doubt, some publishers still publish articles with the spelling "Kiev", even though they said (e.g. in a style guide update) that they would use "Kyiv", and even though other articles they publish use "Kyiv". I think, on balance, even among these sources, "Kiev" is the rare mistake, and "Kyiv" is the standard. For example, you posted a Reuters article from today that used "Kiev". Here are three others from today that use "Kyiv": [25] [26] [27] and here is Reuter's Ukraine section; clicking on the various articles shows that "Kyiv" is used almost all the time, with "Kiev" being a rare exception. Here are the search results for "Kiev" at Reuters.com: only three articles this month used "Kiev". Here are the search results for "Kyiv" at Reuters.com: 10 articles in the last two days. As I said, it's not even close.
    You posted a NYT article from this month that uses "Kiev", which is actually a reprint of a Reuters article. But here are two articles from today at The New York Times (own byline) that use "Kyiv": [28] [29]
    You posted a CBC article from this month that uses "Kiev". Here's one that uses "Kyiv": [30]
    Even if you remove Reuters, NYT, and CBC from the list, there are still a whole bunch of other outlets on that list that use "Kyiv". Lev!vich 19:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    But not exclusively. And that list does not include all the sources that do use Kiev because nobody cares about it that uses Kiev. All I'm saying is that the list "may" be correct in who says they will officially use Kyiv, but it is not correct in who actually follows that practice. That makes that list less important than your original statement suggests. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    The list in my user space is a list of examples of actual recent usage, i.e. who follows the practice. No comment on the other list. Lev!vich 23:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    You have Reuters listed and they are all over the place in usage. With that one not being true as far as "practice" the others are all suspect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    No, Reuters is not "all over the place in usage". I just painstakingly demonstrated, with links and examples, that Reuters used "Kyiv" ten times just in the last couple days, but used "Kiev" only three times in the last month. That's not "all over the place in usage", that's overwhelmingly using "Kyiv".
    Look, one thing is clear: Reuters uses "Kyiv", and so does pretty much everybody else. That's the point of people putting forward all these lists filled with examples. Now, those opposing this move, if they actually had a COMMONNAME argument, would be able to produce a similar list of sources using "Kiev". Not one or two examples. Not one or two sources. But dozens upon dozens of examples. Because there are dozens upon dozens of examples of "Kyiv".
    Now, maybe some think that as long as there is anyone using "Kiev", as long as we can find even one example, then we should still spell is "Kiev". Maybe some think that we shouldn't change it to "Kyiv" until no one in the world is using "Kiev" anywhere. Maybe some think we should be the last people in the world to adopt the new spelling. I don't. "Kyiv" is the common name, per the overwhelming number of examples of usage, plus all the style guide changes, plus all the official name changes. "I found an exception!" doesn't persuade me, and it doesn't undercut that "Kyiv" is the commonly-used spelling of the city in English. Lev!vich 15:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    After the discussion below, I'd like to add to my !vote that Google Scholar and Google Ngrams suggest "Kyiv" is the common name:
  • Oppose Kiev is used more than Kyiv in the English language, as proven by comparing Google search results of Kiev/Kyiv-related terms between quotation marks. (For instance: "Kiev" 2020 shows over 2x more results than "Kyiv" 2020 - I add the years in order to get more recent content.) You guys should try. For any disputes of this sort I am systematically in favour of using the name that is most the commonly used in English, ironically, per WP:COMMONNAME. --Spafky (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    Google search results are not accurate, especially the number of "hits" displayed on the first page of results. See e.g. Criticism of Google#Possible misuse of search results, WP:GNUM (specifically WP:GYNOT), and WP:GOOGLEHITS. Lev!vich 19:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    Spafky, you’re reinforcing misunderstandings about COMMONNAME. Not a great way to launch the re-opening of this discussion. It asks us to consider the most commonly used name in “reliable English-language sources,” advises us against relying on Google’s web search, and then to exclude Wikipedia results. And, of course, read WP:GOOG on how not to fall for Google’s completely inaccurate estimate of results. —Michael Z. 19:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support In terms of raw usage, the numbers don't actually point to this move. But given the trends (and more importantly, the explanations for those trends) in how reliable sources use the name, the move seems proper and reasonable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I can already feel myself regretting joining this mess. I think some arguments above re WP:COMMONNAME seem to miss the point, namely none of them have an objective foundation or criteria to evaluate against. Thus, all those COMMONNAME arguments end up being anecdotal. We're not going to reach any logical conclusion by considering WP:COMMONNAME alone on this matter, as it isn't specialised to address place name disputes and is thus lacking in relevant objective criteria. WP:WIAN fills this gap and gives us an objective set of criteria to assess against to determine the common name, and indeed WP:NCGN is the specific guideline for article titles for geographic places. That guideline is even kind enough to give specific sites, atlases and services to look at! Analysing their advice...
    • Disinterested, authoritative reference works are almost always reliable if they are current. (omitting the list, but see at WIAN) Giving examples like (links go to source) Encyclopædia Britannica. Atlases (I have no access to these, someone want to check?) The Times Comprehensive Atlas, National Geographic, Oxford Atlas of the World, Collins World Atlas, Penguin (this one I could check–Kyiv), ditto (lacking access) for gazetteers and maps (although, for maps I can check, and WIAN permits online ones, the widely used Google Maps and Bing Maps and Apple Maps do all use "Kyiv"). As for governments, we have Geographic Names Information System / BGN (of the US government, also recommended by UK govt), The United Nations (noting the caveat that neither of these shows 'conventional' usage). CIA World Factbook. All these resources use "Kyiv" (except the atlases, which I'm unsure of as I cannot check). CIA World Factbook and the US BGN seem to be the major ones here, since those being changed seems to result in changes elsewhere.
    • English-language news media can also be very reliable sources. Others have provided links to show most major English RS now using "Kyiv" in their style guides.
    • Regarding Google Scholars and Google Books, But even a widely recognized name change will take time to be reflected in such searches, as they may still include references to the place name before the change., nevertheless here are the ngram results. Further, WP:WIAN discourages most forms of raw number usage, Google News and Lexis-Nexis search results can provide a quick guide to the relative predominance of alternative names across the media as a whole, provided the search parameters are properly set, but as with all raw search numbers, they should be used with caution.
    • Raw counts from Google must be considered with extreme caution, if at all. and linking to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Search_engine_issues
    Thus, our guidelines clearly state we should place our priority in individual, named reliable sources, and not Google numbers, especially where the former exists (as it does here). As main objections above have revolved around Google numbers, per policy they should be discarded. COMMONNAME arguments without reference to any evidence should, also, be discarded. Considering the sources WIAN advises to look at, it looks like the preference by authoritative sources is now "Kyiv". Looks like the move is now supported by policy. The question of if it is really 'the most common' is somewhat left unanswered, as it can't really be evaluated further, on any objective criteria beyond the ones mentioned. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support per nom. The fact that the given sources above (to mention some: Reuters, Associated Press, The Washington Post, and even Library of Congress of the United States) have switched to using Kyiv in their "manuals of style." Even the longtime Britannica has switched to "Kyiv" (https://www.britannica.com/place/Kyiv), so its time to use the official spelling. I agree with Levivich, Google hits test is commonly misused, and as per WP:GOOGLEHITS: "Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. A more detailed description of the problems that can be encountered using a search engine to determine suitability can be found at Wikipedia:Search engine test." Found also a passage at Wikipedia:Search engine test#Neutrality: "As such, Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles – only of popular ones. Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reason I always oppose, because "Kiev" is the COMMONNAME in English, despite claims that is not. Also, the re-opening is not valid, and this should be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I should have checked to see if I had voted before in this particular RfC, which is one of many that have been opened on this subject within the past 15 years or so, but in all fairness to myself, stuff like that is going to happen when an RfC is closed down and then re-opened after a long period of time. I'm afraid I don't see the justification for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose ~ exactly what BMK said, both points; happy days, LindsayHello 08:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. At this point in time "Kyiv" is the WP:COMMONNAME spelling in English. Those who believe otherwise are indulging their own nostalgia or haven't kept up with the current trend. Even the New York Times changed its spelling to Kyiv in November 2019, and most all of the major anglophone media use Kyiv. The same is the case for reliable books. Softlavender (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The Google Ngrams prove otherwise.[31] Rreagan007 (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The Google Ngrams you searched would include false positive results like "Chicken Kiev" and so forth. Also, they only go to 2019. Nevertheless, the large drop in "Kiev" after 1995 proves the point. Here's a better, but still not totally accurate, Ngram, which shows an even more pronounced drop: [32]. NGrams make the trendline clear, but they don't quite answer the question for us, particularly given that it's now August 2020, and thus the NGrams corpus won't include any recent publications. Lev!vich 16:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
In fairness, yours also has false positives for Dynamo Kyiv - and given the search terms you've chosen those will be more common. Kahastok talk 17:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Google Ngrams only go up to 2019. It's now September 2020. All major reliable sources use "Kyiv"; even the Even the New York Times changed its spelling to Kyiv in November 2019. Softlavender (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree that "Kyiv" is WP:COMMONNAME per media, use in international relations, etc. Carter (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the many arguments against moving the page. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and reasons given by other users above. "Kyiv" seems to have overtaken "Kiev" in reliable sources, media, international relations, etc. (And, as mentioned by User:Gobonobo and User:Kahastok above, WP:COMMONNAME also says When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.). Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support While Kiev still has more Google hits, assessing COMMONNAME also requires taking into account whether quality trumps quantity (e.g. 1 bot-created webpage isn't more important than 2 mainstream media articles). For instance, the fact that Google Maps still uses Kiev, could explain a lot of automated results. I give a lot of weight to the numerous official institutions and media organisations indicating that they use Kyiv. I doubt any of us in fact are competent to say when common use has definitely swifted, so it just has to be settled in an imperfect process. --Pudeo (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    Google Maps uses Kyiv. I actually seriously doubt they could operate in Ukraine if they continued to use Kiev.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    Funny, it's Kiev, and Київ below it, for me in Google Maps. I suppose it depends on where your IP is located. --Pudeo (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    Comment to @Pudeo: in my Google Maps it's "Kyiv" above and "Київ" below. I don't know if that system is due to my location here, at least here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    Same for me (my location). It also uses Czechia (not Czech Republic) here. Hddty (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - not yet, maybe in a few years. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support at this point it’s the common usage in most style guides and is only gaining more traction. I think this satisfies the intent of COMMONNAME. Garuda28 (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – the majority of respected English-language sources now use the Ukrainian transliteration rather than the Russian transliteration. As we are an encyclopedia and obliged to follow their lead, and because we generally respect the right of people and groups to choose how they want to be identified, it's time for us to make this change too. – bradv🍁 18:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The use of CommonName to oppose is risible; Kyiv is clearly now the common name used by major reliable sources, even if regular people and bots creating whatever Google search returns haven't gotten the message yet: "it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals." Reywas92Talk 19:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Russian is a common language in the city, so lets keep the Russian transliteration per TITLEVAR. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    A couple of people have raised the point now. To be clear: Kiev is not a Russian transliteration. People using Kiev are not starting from Киев and working from there. Rather, Kiev entered the English language as the standard English name for the city a few centuries ago in the same way that Vienna, Warsaw and Moscow did. This is a question about English, not a question about Russian or Ukrainian. Kahastok talk 20:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    According to Kiev § Name, it entered English while Kyiv was part of the Russian Empire, and corresponds to Russian orthography and pronunciation. Perhaps it's an oversimplification, but the fact remains that there is a Russian-inspired name and a Ukrainian-inspired name, and we are presently using the Russian one. – bradv🍁 20:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
And we call Vienna by an Italian-inspired name and Cologne by a French-inspired name. No matter, both are now English. I assume there is no movement to remove other English terms derived from Russian from this article and replace them with terms derived from Ukrainian. The fact that the word Kiev derives from Russian is not a reason to replace it or not to replace it.
Now, to be clear, I don't see that that invalidates the substance of your argument, that Kyiv is now the more common form in English. I think it probably does invalidate Ludost Mlačani's argument. Which may sound an odd thing to say given my vote back in July but there you are. Kahastok talk 21:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
"Russian is a common language there so lets use the Russian spelling" makes no sense, even if it were true. The local language is Ukrainian, and "Kyiv" is the local spelling using the Latin alphabet, and has been for 25+ years. If we want to follow local practice, it's "Kyiv". Lev!vich 20:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Look at articles Ukraine and Kiev, Russian is commonly used. And Russian uses transliteration Kiev in English, look at Russia Today for instance. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
We don't even use the Russian transliteration of "Moscow" (which is "Moskva"), why would we use the Russian transliteration of Kyiv? Lev!vich 20:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Because we do not have a proper English name for this city, just two transliterations. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I see, so we have no proper English name for the capital city of Ukraine, just two transliterations: one transliteration is Ukrainian, the other is not Ukrainian. Which one should we use? 🤔 Lev!vich 21:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I would say Russian, according to the policy WP:PLACE: "one solution is to follow English usage where it can be determined, and to adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive." We do the same for the places in South Tyrol, we use German names. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
The linguistic majority in Ukraine speak Ukrainian and spell it "Kyiv" in English. "Kyiv" is the spelling used in the city and in the country since it officially changed in the 1990s. There is no reason to use the spelling of a linguistic minority. Lev!vich 21:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Ukraine#Language: "with Russian being more common in Kiev", Kiev#Demographics: According to a 2006 survey, Ukrainian is used at home by 23% of Kievans, 52% use Russian. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll point out the obvious issue, although by no means the largest hole in this argument: 2006 survey. Unfortunately, last census was in 2001, so I doubt further reliable info will be found on this point until 2021, the next census. Regardless, if you're trying to make a TITLEVAR argument (note the guideline says a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation) implying that the "strong ties" relationship of Kiev/Kyiv to the city and Ukraine mandates us to use the Russian transliteration, while Ukraine is lobbying for usage of "Kyiv" and finds the Russian transliteration offensive... well, that's a strong [dubious – discuss]. It logically follows that no clear TITLEVAR argument can be made here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Even if ve ignore the TITLEVAR, there is still WP:PLACE argument to "adopt the name used by the linguistic majority where English usage is indecisive". Is English usage indeciseve? Obviosly. Is lingustic majority in the city Russian? Yes. So, it is all clear. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, the section begins with There are cases in which the local authority recognizes equally two or more names from different languages which doesn't apply here, but I get your point. Your argument would be for the closer to weigh. I would only say two things. First, If you cite WP:PLACE you must accept the guideline entirely, and it gives criteria for determining commonname (WP:WIAN), and that criteria gives us an unambiguous answer. Second, we can't determine current linguistic majority, because the last official survey was 2001 (nb: 2021 census is indefinitely delayed). Some recent, informal estimates show that to have changed, but obviously such aren't reliable to draw any conclusions from either. And really, that section is last-ditch advice when all else fails. It's not clear that such is the case here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Levivich:. I've struck the portion of my comment relating to Google Scholar, although I still oppose a move based on the N-grams results. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Billhpike, mid 2019 to early 2020 was when the conservative holdouts saw the writing on the wall and started using Kyiv, including the BGN’s authoritative geo-names database, the Associated Press, Reuters, BBC, WSJ, WaPo, NY Times. Ngram doesn’t reflect this, but it seems vanishingly unlikely that this past-the-tipping-point trend will reverse. Wikipedia is now the inconsistent outlier until we choose to use the common, modern name. —Michael Z. 16:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Ngrams show a weak trend towards increasing use of Kyiv compared with Kiev over the last twenty years. There is quite a bit of variation from year to year - if only the data had been up to 2018, with British English you would have said that it was approaching the tipping point and it will not reverse - but the 2019 data showed that it did. Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future, which is why Wikipedia policy is that we do not predict.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Toddy1, Ngram’s last data point is the average over all of 2019. If you look at the reliable sources and authoritative references that our guidelines point to, many of them have been updated since mid 2019. It is past the tipping point, because there are practically no current references that will guide authors and editors to use the old spelling. Ngram’s previous trend has zero effect on present and future usage. Conservative holdouts like the BBC and NY Times updated their practices because smart people see the writing on the wall, and don’t just assume that a line on next year’s graph will neatly follow the last 20 years. See, for example, what happened to the usage of “the Ukraine” after the AP and NYT changed their practice on December 2, 1991. —Michael Z. 14:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Survey (September)

Necrothesp, nothing has changed??? Did you read the nom? Every major English news source including The NY Times has switched from Kiev to Kyiv in the last few months. How is that nothing? It’s everything with respect to the usage we reflect in our titles. —-В²C ☎ 15:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Necrothesp, taken as a count with no account of date, yes. Looking at current sources, you'll find that Breitbart uses Kiev and the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Financial Times and the rest use Kyiv. There's a fascinating piece in the FT describing just why editors enforced Kiev for so long: [35]. Basically, they eat Chicken Kiev so they think using the correct transliteration of the Ukrainian cyrillic Київ will confuse their readers. That's not a great reason for using what is, in effect, a deadname. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Basically every major English news source already uses "Kyiv". Only a small minority were citing WP:COMMONNAME as an argument against change when we moved North Macedonia. Why should this be any different? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
On the direct question, why should it be different to North Macedonia. The answer is, because they are completely different situations, with very little in common.
The reason only a small minority - if any - were claiming WP:COMMONNAME at the North Macedonia RM is because Republic of Macedonia had never been the common name for that country. The common name was plain Macedonia, but we couldn't use Macedonia because it was ambiguous. After the name change had become official, sources had rapidly switched to North Macedonia and per WP:NAMECHANGES we gave greater weight to those sources written after the change.
Those factors do not apply here. While we may all disagree on the common name today, Kiev was certainly the common name until relatively recently. North Macedonia is clearly English, whereas Kyiv is explicitly a transliteration from Ukrainian. And while North Macedonia was a new change, this is a change from the mid-nineties that few English-language sources adopted until very recently. Kahastok talk 16:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support per WP:COMMONNAME. The arguments and links provided by Levivich and others during the discussion are convincing. But this is still a borderline renaming and still Kievan Rus. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the English language Wikipedia, not the Ukrainian one. The OED has an entry for Kiev but not Kyiv. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
    Andrew Davidson, Kyiv is the common English language name of the city as evidenced here --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
    Kiev is the most common English language name of the city as evidenced here. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
    That only goes up to 2019. We will probably not get another ngram update for another 5 years. The last ngram was only went up to 2008. You have also not accounted for other occurrences. It was much closer than that and growing exponentially. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    Comment on errors with Ngrams. One of the problems of the Google Books Ngram facility is that it is easy to make mistakes with it.
    The above editor suggested this Ngram, but for 2019: this gives 3,161 for kiev excluding chicken kiev and dynamo kiev, and 2,263 for kyiv excluding dynamo kyiv. It also gives an error message: "Case-insensitive searches and compositions cannot be combined. Ignoring case-insensitive option."
    You therefore need to get the capitalisation right, as here; for 2019 this gives: 1,813,261 for Kiev excluding Chicken Kiev and Dynamo Kiev, and 839,062 for Kyiv excluding Chicken Kyiv and Dynamo Kyiv. It is also worth experimenting with the buttons for English/American English/British English, and for the smoothing levels (0 appears to be no smoothing, 3 is default smoothing).
    When you do combinations, you get a case sensitive search. Hence the error message mentioned above. But the 2019 default-smoothed frequencies of capitalised Kiev/Kyiv (1,257,970 and 532,131) are much greater than for Chicken Kiev/Kyiv (7,227 and 116) and Dynamo Kiev/Kyiv (4,097 and 2,617). So the error in just comparing Kiev and Kyiv in a case sensitive ngram is tiny as long as you get the capitalisation right.
    -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    The ngram misses an important question of relative weight. Google is of no help here: Breitbart has a huge web presence and uses Kiev obsessively (as do most far-right sources), whereas the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal (left- and right-leaning sides of mainstream journalism) both use Kyiv and have done pretty consistently since the impeachment hearings and increasingly frequently before that.
    A Financial Times journalist in 2014 noted that "This correspondent has on many occasions pointed out the political incorrectness of using ‘Kiev’ but editors come back with the same excuse before running a search & replace on your copy: “It’s the chicken thing.” The Russian spelling of Ukraine’s most famous dish is so deeply ingrained in the reading public’s mind (believe editors) that almost no newspaper is willing to foist the alien looking ‘Kyiv’ on its punters.". [36]
    So when you weight the sources by seriousness, I think you reach a very clear emerged (rather than emergent) preference for Kyiv. That's what the UN uses, as does the EU, every English-speaking foreign diplomatic mission, IATA and so on. We are even lagging behind Britannica here. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    I don't know how old your OED is, but OED 3rd ed. (2010) has an entry for "Kyiv". It's on page 981. (They also have "Kiev" on page 966.) [37] Lev!vich 03:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment to @Andrew Davidson: WP:USEENGLISH is not compulsory on enwiki, as evidenced by my successful move attempt for Libingan ng mga Bayani in our country (pls. see Talk:Libingan ng mga Bayani#Requested move 25 July 2020 for the proof). And wait, this issue is about names of places and not on names of landmarks or institutions, so what should prevail is the WP:COMMONNAME based on most reliable sources, and not just the English-only policy and also the use of the frequently-misused Google ngrams. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • When I access Kiev in the online OED, it says that "This entry has been updated (OED Third Edition, December 2019)" so I suppose Levivich is accessing some other version. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
    Your !vote is based on the singular but very false reason "The OED has an entry for Kiev but not Kyiv". In fact, the OED has an entry for "Kyiv", and has had one for years. Both the online and the print version. The original OED and the AmEng and CanEng versions. It all has an entry for "Kyiv". I've already pointed to you the page in the books. You're just not being truthful when you claim that "OED has an entry for Kiev but not Kyiv". Type in "Kyiv" in the search bar, and something comes up, doesn't it? What exactly comes up depends on the version, but the entry is there in all versions since at least 2010. Lev!vich 23:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
    The OED does not include entries for proper names and place names, as such. Its entry for Kiev is only for the name used to form compounds, and all three definitions pertain to chicken Kyiv (Yes, the 2019 update adds “now also Kyiv”). But this is not an entry about how the city’s name is spelled at all. Is this not completely obvious?! Please don’t pretend it is or intends to be an authority on the proper noun’s spelling and usage. —Michael Z. 02:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support So many official bodies and institutions have changed. Major manuals of style have changed, which are a good guide to reliable source usage. The (legitimate) government wants the change. The arguments over whether this is merely a transliteration from Ukrainian don't hold water, nor how many Russian speakers there are in Kyiv: these changes are taking place in English. The cause of the change is certainly political (Ukrainian independence/self-determination), but that's neither here nor there in terms of how many organisations and institutions are now following the change. ADD: I see some have suggested this is a case of people trying to "Right Great Wrongs" ie push WP to take a lead. I think that puts the cart before the horse. The change in the real world can reasonably be cast as "righting a great wrong" for those who have wanted the change. That doesn't make their success in persuading major institutions to change out of order in terms of Wikipedia policy. OsFish (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Just an extra comment on some arguments made. First, there was something of a spat earlier today about the issue of how editors who previously were opposed based on how manuals of style/institutions were yet to change have not changed position even though those MoS/orgs have now changed practice. I do think it's important that in discussions like these we don't look to justify unshifting conclusions, but to reach conclusions based on principles. If Manuals of style were important then, then they're important now. Second, arguments that this move is being brought up again and again and so can be dismissed as mere partisan troublemaking can only hold so much water. Yes, clearly, there has been long-term agitation for this change. But it hasn't been only on Wikipedia. It has been reflective of real world agitation that is patently gaining very significant success. As such, the rule of thumb that repeated attempts to move are trivial partisanship ceases to have strength. Third, Wikipedia naming policy exists, like so much of core policy, in lieu of having authoritative editorial staff. That is, it's a way of reconstructing how an encyclopedia should behave. WP:COMMONNAME is very helpful where there is no consensus on a standard name in reputable sources (which happens because English Wikipedia is vast compared to other English language encyclopedias). However, when WP:COMMONNAME is used to make Wikipedia different from the crowd of major reputable sources (other encyclopedias and major media outlets), there is a problem. Wikipedia starts to lead (or make a rearguard action), rather than leave the real world untouched. Which isn't what should happen. Wikipedia is, and should be, boring like that.OsFish (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support have opposed in the past every time this RM has come up. Was sceptical about the BBC switch to Kyiv in October last year. But you know almost a year after the BBC switched, the sky hasn't fallen in, and it's now at the point where "Kiev" is beginning to sound a little like "Bombay" or "Calcutta". I don't think a single vote above has expressed conviction that the scales aren't eventually going to tip to Kyiv, so we might as well just get on with it. The scales are not going to tip back again. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The official name has changed, and it appears we've reached the point where Kyiv has attained if not surpassed the usage level of Kiev in reliable sources, given the preponderance of the evidence presented above. The trend is very clearly in favor of Kyiv as well, especially given that many governments, major news organizations, and manuals of style have adopted the Kyiv spelling. What are we waiting for, exactly? CThomas3 (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support We should follow the style guides of reputable, reliable press organizations, not try to cast Google runes. XOR'easter (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The majority of the reliable sources have recently changed the language they use, and it's right that Wikipedia follows suit.—S Marshall T/C 10:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Technically, we might be slightly early, but worst case there’s zero chance this is not inevitable. Even if actual usage isn’t quite there yet, I call WP:IAR. The wave of change is far enough along for us to follow suit. —-В²C ☎ 15:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: I came here after seeing a mention at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, expecting to oppose a move, but (a) the move nomination is convincing and (b) I checked my preferred source for current educated UK English usage, the Guardian style guide ("Kiev not Kiev; but chicken kiev") ("Kyiv not Kiev; but chicken kiev"), and I agree that it's time we changed - just as we have Mumbai rather than Bombay. PamD 17:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Wait @PamD:, "Kiev not Kiev; but chicken kiev"? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Well spotted: @JWilz12345: Transcription error! Now amended above. PamD 18:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi @Chris troutman:, can you please move your comment to "Survey (september)" section - editors have been asked to add their comments in chronological order. Thanks. (you can either delete my comment when you move yours, or move mine with yours, thanks)--73.75.115.5 (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support  Please follow Wikipedia guidelines, ignore spurious arguments, and overcome the systemic bias reflected in some Wikipedians’ personal preference. The guidelines indicate that articles are to be titled by the name commonly used in up-to-date, reliable English-language sources. Even the most conservative sources like Britannica and the New York Times have adopted Kyiv because the usage trend is past the tipping point. Wikipedia is exemplified as the holdout, out of touch with modern scholarship and international standards, popular sources of information, and English-language media in general. And after the rest of the English-speaking world has honoured Ukrainians’ self-identification by respecting their native toponyms, keeping the old name despite our own guidelines’ warrant would be just shameful. Relevant guideline excerpts below, but please read the entire guidelines if you are able.
    • WP:TITLE: “Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject.” Kyiv meets the other characteristics of a good title, including Recognizability: Kyiv is used in all international standards, by international organizations (and therefore, e.g., in aviation and adopted in all airports), and in current media at least as much as Kiev, and the trend of adoption will continue.
      • WP:COMMONNAME: “generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources),” “it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals.” Thanks to the nominator for doing the work of gathering this information and listing many of them above. Also see the summary in the article, at Kiev#Name. These sources overwhelmingly support this move.
        • COMMONNAME can not be determined by a Google search! “The Google Scholar and Google Books search engines can provide helpful results, if parameters are properly set,” but “raw counts from Google must be considered with extreme caution, if at all.” And see WP:GOOGLE on how to find the actual number of search results, because “hit counts reported by Google are only estimates, which in some cases have been shown to necessarily be off by nearly an order of magnitude.”
      • WP:NAMECHANGES: “we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change.”
    • WP:PLACE: “a widely accepted English name, in a modern context,” “For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed”: English-language sources have all changed their practice since the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and start of the Russo-Ukrainian War.
    • WP:MODERNPLACENAME: “For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name . . . rather than an older one.” “Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage. That can be assessed by reviewing up-to-date references to the place in a modern context in reliable, authoritative sources such as news media, other encyclopedias, atlases and academic publications as well as the official publications of major English-speaking countries, for example the CIA World Factbook.”
    • WP:WIAN: “Disinterested, authoritative reference works are almost always reliable if they are current,” “English-language news media,” “standard histories and scientific studies.” Recommends a list of specific sources, which support the move.
     —Michael Z. 02:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per previous opposers. Relisting over and over until you get the "right" result is not how things work. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    Stifle, sorry, but I think you are missing a point here, which is that usage has changed. The same will undoubtedly happen for Bangalore at some point, since Bengaluru is now locally preferred. This is not an immutable situation, it's more like keeping the article on Gdańsk at Danzig. Actually worse, since Gdańsk did actually change hands, whereas Ukraine was basically occupied and its culture suppressed. Ukrainian Cyrillic alphabet has extra letters including the ї in Київ, which is absent in Russian Cyrillic.
    From the article, The United Nations GEGN Geographical Names Database uses Kyiv. The United States Board on Geographic Names (or BGN) changed its standard transliteration in October 2006 and updated the conventional name of the city in June 2019, in its database used by the US government and influencing other international bodies. The International Air Transport Association updated its spelling to Kyiv in October 2019. Kyiv is also used by the European Union, all English-speaking foreign diplomatic missions and governments, several international organizations, and the Encyclopædia Britannica.
    So the question is, at what point do we follow the evolving use in serious reliable sources, and for how long do we cling to the version preferred by Russia? The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal have changed, Breitbart hasn't, where along that continuum do we stand? Guy (help! - typo?) 11:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
User:JzG, you were doing so good repeating the same old arguments that have been made before until you got back to the stupidity of "the version preferred by Russia" as if English usage had been dictated by Russia. That's just a stupid comment on your part. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, you misunderstand, I think. The fact that Russia prefers Kiev to Kyiv is not a reason for changing. The reason for changing is that Kyiv is the name used by pretty much all serious sources now. The preference of Russia is relevant in that they have extensive experience of using bot farms, troll farms and the rest to amplify their messaging, and this amplification is polluting current searches and masking what is in fact an unambiguous preference in serious sources of the type Wikipedia uses for content. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
JzG, no, it is you who misunderstand, I think. Claiming that opposition to the move is based in any way on Russia's wishes is a personal attack on those serious editors who look at the simple fact that "Kiev" is a commonname in English like "Moscow", "Prague", "Warsaw", "Copenhagen", etc. are commonnames in English. Attributing that to "Russian interests" is an insulting argument. It is just as insulting to us as insisting that your support is primarily motivated by Ukrainian governmental interference in the process (which, unlike your hypothetical Russian interference, is well-documented). So just stop with the "Russian" accusations. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, but that's not what I meant. You misunderstood my comment, so I explained it. What is very obvious, is that serious sources have changed form using Kiev, to Kyiv. It's equally clear that a lot of the resistance was due to editors not understanding the point (and possibly thinking about chicken dishes), and the events of last year raised the profile of the name change very considerably. Since then, I have not seen a single serious source use the old transliteration. Even Britannica has changed. The main sources using it now are places like Breitbart. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
JzG. You did not mention "Russia(ns)" just once, in which case I might possibly think that you were just writing nonsense, but you have mentioned them several times since you showed up very late to the party and started rampaging around like a bull in a china shop, replying to comments that are months old and now irrelevant. Don't act like you have something original to offer here that no one else has ever mentioned. You don't. You're just repeating the same old song and dance that I've read a dozen times before. Post your vote and then stop posting the same old wall of noise without anything new to contribute. Your accusations that those who oppose the move right now are somehow misguided souls who can be converted by your repeated arguments are laughable. No new evidence, no new arguments, same old accusations of Russian collusion, yawn. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, it's almost as if Wikipedia has debates that people might not notice immediately, and that's why we let debates run for a while. I suggest you dial back the accusations - not least because any accusation of WP:BLUDGEONing is likely to WP:BOOMERANG on you right now, since you've made more than three times as many edits to this page as any other editor, in its entire history, more or less equalling the next four most active put together (I'm at #102 on the list). Those stats paint an interesting picture of a small number of people who are very determined not to change this title.
You have not also engaged with the core point, which is that serious sources (both journalistic and professional) now use Kyiv, with few, if any, exceptions. The main ongoing source for new references to Kiev, be it in the press or in books, appears to be right-wing ideologues - certainly in non-book sources, and in practice in books as well (e.g. Kremlin fanboy Stephen F. Cohen). Not exclusively - Michael V. Hayden uses Kiev in his book - but the impeachment hearings does seem to have been a catalytic event here, and it's very clear that we are by now lagging behind serious sources and far behind the preferred nomenclature of the country itself. This is basically the nationalist version of deadnaming. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
JzG I have to laugh at your determination. You learned how to count contributions on a page and found that I've contributed a lot. I imagine that the simple fact that I've been contributing to this page regularly since it first started to get active in 2009 accounts for that. So your "outrage" at my activity here is rather pointless and misguided. And that "small number of people determined not to change the title" is meaningless since rather than ever having the data to surmount the requirements of WP:COMMONNAME until recently getting close, supporters of the change have for eleven years relied on "but the Rada said so". You also missed both of my points. First, charging the opponents of this move with only thinly-veiled Russian collusion or being some kind of right-wing ideologues is insulting. Since you're somewhat skilled at linking to Wikipedia practices, should I point out WP:AGF to you? Second, my point about your posts is that you have added nothing new to the discussion that hasn't already been written five times on this page. If you're going to show up late to the party at least read what's already been written and don't repeat it endlessly. So far, the only "contribution" you've made is to accuse opponents of the move of Russian collusion or of being right-wing ideologues. In other words, you've contributed nothing new but personal attacks. I was going to ignore you until you started throwing around your attacks. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, you really should consider dialling back the snark here. My point is very straightforward: the tools people usually use to verify the common name of a thing, are unreliable here, for specific reasons, and that means we are not reflecting a close to universal change by the kinds of sources Wikipedia uses over the last year and more.
The kinds of sources that make ongoing use of Kiev, and are over-represented in Google, are Russian-influenced (or pro-Trump and thus anti-Ukraine) far-right troll sites like Breitbart. The kinds of sources that we prefer, and have changed, include mainstream journalism but also diplomatic and NGO sources that are under-represented in Google results. If you weight source counts by source quality, the balance has very clearly shifted in favour of Kyiv. Sourcing is a particular focus of mine (you'll see me a lot at WP:RSN).
There's a difference between a thing being common and a thing being the common name. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
JzG You still don't get my point--that your posts have added nothing to the issue that wasn't already abundantly presented by other supporters of the move at least a month ago other than the personal attacks which are you are making against opponents of the move. But since you seem to be unable to see through your own self-righteousness, I'll not respond anymore. Your insults have convinced no one. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, see also projection (psychology). Guy (help! - typo?) 18:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I have not commented since submitting my "support" vote on July 1, but Ahecht's brief posting directly above condenses the entire matter into stark perspective. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Talk:Kiev/sources. As stated above, it's clear this change is going to happen it's just a matter of when, now or in a year.   // Timothy :: talk  16:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I put more weight in what reliable sources are saying specifically on the topic than original research conducted through Google searches (which is often misleading or inaccurate). AIRcorn (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. It doesn't appear to me that the common name has changed at this time, and the blatant manipulation of the July discussion still looms large. O.N.R. (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)  — Duplicate vote: Old Naval Rooftops (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
  • Oppose. While the campaign advocating for Kyiv has had some significant success, and some significant sources and organizations have issued top-down policies in favor of Kyiv, my review of the evidence presented above and my independent investigations indicate that Kiev predominates over Kyiv in English usage. My crystal ball says it is neither certain nor impossible that Kyiv will eventually take hold as the common English name, and anyone's crystal ball is irrelevant. P.S. I have a tip for Ukrainian National Defense. What you need to do is build a Disneyland. It sounds silly, but I'm serious. The American public will go crazy if there are reports of Russian soldiers within a million meters of a Disneyland. Alsee (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    Hey, Alsee, I believe your comments are inappropriate. I’m asking that you strike them so we don’t have to get into an unproductive discussion. Thanks. —Michael Z. 14:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC) // Thank you, Alsee. —Michael Z. 20:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. It's 2020 now. Ukraine is no longer a Soviet satellite state (for now, anyway). Ukraine uses Kyiv officially, and, as we saw during the impeachment hearings, so do pretty much all serious people engaged in the region, and pretty much all serious sources. Google fights not designed to identify changes in the consensus term used for a place. The CIA World Factbook calls it Kyiv. The UK's Foreign Office calls it Kyiv. The US Embassy website identifies it as Kyiv. The only current official sources that don't are Russian client states. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
In response tot hose who say that we should not rely soi heavily on current sources (which routinely use Kyiov) but should decide that the common name is Kiev, based on a simple count of all sources. That approach will ensure that we lag further and further behind current practice. Kiev is effectively a "deadname" applied by Russian imperialists. Kyiv is the preferred anglicisation in Ukrainian, and the fac t that news sources largely ignored this until the US impeachment hearings is laziness ont heir part, it has been the official anglicisation used in diplomatic circles for some years now (I have a friend who is a retired Ambassador and confirms this). We are normally good at regonising local preference against Imperialist name (Mumbai, Kolkata, Pune and more). This is not WP:RECENTISM, Kyiv is used in the preponderance of serious sources for some time. The Financial Times is hardly a rabble-rousing ledftist rag. This from 2014: This correspondent has on many occasions pointed out the political incorrectness of using ‘Kiev’ but editors come back with the same excuse before running a search & replace on your copy: “It’s the chicken thing.” The Russian spelling of Ukraine’s most famous dish is so deeply ingrained in the reading public’s mind (believe editors) that almost no newspaper is willing to foist the alien looking ‘Kyiv’ on its punters. [39] Do we really want to perpetuate laziness in this way? Ukrainian has a distinct Cyrillic alphabet which has extra letters, including the ï which appears in Київ. Ukrainian is a separate language, and whereas the reason for using the Russian Imperialist transliteration used to be journalistic laziness, now it's right-wingers obsessed with Ukraine as a current nexus of US political corruption. Breitbart uses Kiev, the Washington Post does not. I think that tells you everything you need to know at this point. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If we only counted 2019–2020 sources or only cared about present-day Kiev, then the move could go through. But Kiev is not a new place. I think the ngram cited by Rreagan007 is decisive and very recent shifts are being overweighted relative to established usage—and particular kinds of sources (news, official sources) over actual common usage in English. Srnec (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    Srnec, that is exactly what WP:MODERNPLACENAME means and what it tells us to do. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Coffeeandcrumbs: I disagree. Kiev is not akin to Danzig or Constantinople. It is just as modern as Kyiv. A better comparison would be Burma vs Myanmar: two equally valid names both in wide usage. Srnec (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    Srnec, I don’t think it is the same at all, or at least not how you characterize the situation. If this article were currently named Kyiv, there would be no basis to rename it, and no move request with a WP:SNOWball’s chance of success, because that would be the opposite of what reliable sources are doing. —Michael Z. 21:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    User:Mzajac, no one is actually arguing against a trend from Kiev > Kyiv. Editors who oppose this move aren't ignoring the trend (indeed, most including me have specifically stated that one of these days Kyiv will overtake Kiev). The question is simply one of what the situation is right now. Is Kiev still the most common name used in English or is Kyiv? That's the only question. That's why the trend is clear, but our position in the trend is not except through measurements such as Google Trends and Ngrams. While you disagree on the value of these measurements, which is your right, you keep arguing as if the opponents of the move are stupid louts who think that "no one uses Kyiv". Our position is not, and never has been in this RM, "We'll never move", it has always been "We don't think that we're there quite yet, although we're closer than we were". It boils down to how COMMONNAME is measured and whether moving toward COMMONNAME is good enough for a successful move request. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    The supporters of Kyiv have clearly demonstrated that journalists prefer Kyiv by a very large margin, but journalists are only a tiny percentage of the half a billion native speakers of English. How is that vast majority measured? You can disparage Google searches of one type or another, but you offer little more in return than journalist usage. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    Per WP:AT, Wikipedia article titles are "based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject" and not on what some arbitrary, unprovable, collection of native speakers use to refer to the subject. As you admit, journalist and, as has been demonstrated, reference books now prefer Kyiv. That is all the proof we need to show that it is the WP:MODERNPLACENAME.
    Ngrams do show not all books have accepted the change. However, ngrams include reprints of old books and books of fiction.
    Google Trends are meaningless (1) because, unlike Google Search where we can use minus signs, there is no way to carve out "Chicken Kiev" and (2) because of the above described reason, that it does not matter what the regular Joe calls the city. What matters is what reliable sources call the city. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, a predictable reply from User:Coffeeandcrumbs that simply proves that some verbose proponents think that opponents have read nothing else on this page and are going to agree with them with a simple repetition of the arguments they have made a hundred times before. I'm not going to change my position just because this user repeats the same point-of-view. That was the point of my post, to stop talking to opponents as if we were stupid and stop cherry-picking Wikipedia policy as if you have a biblical text and choose which verses to include in your sermon to the exclusion of the opposite point of view. My questions were (I thought) clearly rhetorical without any invitation to begin a discussion. It was an expression of civility, not of argumentation. Stop trying to use your little hammer to try to contradict every single post by an opponent. Since the subtext of my post was too intellectually framed, I'll make it clear--opponents aren't "right" and supporters aren't "right", so once you've made your point, just shut up and let the process play out rather than saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over as if the other editors were stupid or willing to change their point of view..... --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
      Ok, I will "just shut up and let the process play". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • About NGrams - I'm perplexed by multiple editors claiming that Google NGrams shows "Kiev" is more popular than "Kyiv". The Google NGrams for Kiev Ukraine, Kyiv Ukraine shows "Kyiv Ukraine" passing "Kiev Ukraine" in 2018 and 2019. Searching just for "Kiev" will include false positives like Chicken Kiev, and smoothing must be set to 0 to see year-by-year changes. Lev!vich 02:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
What is this perverse focus on Chicken Kiev? Just how popular do you think it is? You really think it is skewing results in books? Besides, there are better ways to try and filter out false positives than putting "Ukraine" in the search as if the city was never "Kiev, USSR" or has no history before the word Ukraine entered English. I repeat: Google NGrams shows "Kiev" is more popular than "Kyiv". Overweighting recent sources means treating RS published in the last year as more valid ("reliable") than those published ten years ago. For a spelling variation on the name of a famous thousand-year-old city... Srnec (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Overweighting recent sources means treating RS published in the last year as more valid ... yes, because they are more valid, as explained at the guideline WP:MODERNPLACENAME. We care what the common name is for our reader today, not what the common name was in the past. Also, I disagree that your ngram is a "better way", because, for example, searching for "of Kiev" or "in Kiev" will pick up all the various things called "Battle of Kiev", "Siege of Kiev", "Kiev Offensive", plus the Soviet aircraft carrier Kiev, KIEV (870 AM), and more... Chicken Kiev is just one example of many false positives, more are listed at Kiev (disambiguation). Comparing "Kiev Ukraine" and "Kyiv Ukraine" is an apples-to-apples comparison. (We are not concerned with "Kiev USSR" because nobody calls it that, as the ngram you linked to shows.) Lev!vich 05:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Srnec, while User:Levivich and I are usually on opposite sides of an issue related to Kiev, in this case he is correct. What we are judging is contemporary WP:COMMONNAME, not historical or the name preference in ancient times or even in the last century. We are trying to determine what is English common usage right now as best we can. That's why things like various Google searches are so important to the discussion because they may or may not be as close as we can come to what the majority of English speakers and especially English writers are using right now, depending on whether they support one's view in this debate or do not support it. If English speakers are using "Kiev" more often, then the article should not move, if they are using "Kyiv" more often, then the article should move. It's as simple as that. Proponents of the move favor one set of data because they think it shows contemporary usage best, opponents of the move favor another set of data because they think it shows contemporary usage best. It's basically a disagreement over evidence of contemporary usage, not over what the name was 100 years ago or even 10 years ago. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
What does the common name ... for our reader today mean? Does it mean for 12 September 2020? The last month? The year 2020? If more sources published on 12 September 2020 used Kiev, would that be decisive? Of course not. I do not agree with the interpretation of WP:MPN being put forward that demands the common name at this moment. This is what I mean by overweighting journalism. Of course you must exclude ngrams entirely if this is the standard. But it's a dumb standard. I agree with Taivo's point above: the trend is clear, but our position in the trend is not except through measurements such as Google Trends and Ngrams. To an editor whose editing requires citing books (and almost never news), it seems utterly absurd to regard 2010 as too distant in the past for the name of an old and well-known city. The "present" and "reliable sources" must not be restricted to the summer of 2020 for the name of the city of Kiev. That does not require us to average out all of history, just to recognize that the trend of common name is not discernible only in the kinds of sources published within the last few months. Srnec (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't mean to sound glib but "today" means today. 12 Sep 2020. Not over the last 10 years. And, really it's also about tomorrow. Because the common name today is probably going to be the common name tomorrow. (And I don't mean ten years from now, I mean 13 Sep 2020.) So that's why we look at the most recent sources to figure out common name. Also, as ti trends, the trend is irrefutable. Every single NGram shows a steep decline in "Kiev" over the last two or three decades and a steep rise for "Kyiv". The "Kyiv Ukraine" ngram shows that surpassing "Kiev Ukraine" in 2018, but even the "Kyiv" ngram shows an unmistakable trend. There are more Google Scholar hits for "Kyiv" than "Kiev" over the last two years (2019 and 2020, see my recent addition to my !vote at the top of the August section for links and counts). This shows which spelling is more commonly used in academic literature. So forget journalism if you want to: books and journals call it "Kyiv, Ukraine" more than "Kiev, Ukraine", today, 12 Sep 2020, and this year (2020), and last year (2019), and they are likely to do the same tomorrow, 13 Sep 2020. In light of the broad global consensus at MPN to use the modern place name, i.e. the current place name, i.e. today's place name, this month's place name, this year's place name, the article should be called "Kyiv". (And even historians would admit that "ten years ago" is "the past" and not "the present".) The strongest argument for "Kiev" is "not yet" and that's a really weak argument, because what the hell are we waiting for? Google Ngrams for plain "Kiev" to fall below "Kyiv"? Is there even a second metric out there supports "Kiev", and if not, why would we slavishly follow Ngrams despite all this other evidence (eg Google Scholar hits, style guides, actual usage in journalism)? Or Google Trends? I mean, let's just rewrite WP:AT to say "call it what Google Ngrams calls it" if that's the case? It doesn't make much sense to me to ignore all this evidence of how common "Kyiv" is. It doesn't make sense to ignore the AP, NYT, BBC, academic journals, international institutions, and so forth. Lev!vich 17:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Let me be quite clear User:Srnec, User:Levivich supports moving the article right now so he focuses almost exclusively on one set of data. I oppose moving the article right now so I focus almost exclusively on a different set of data. But we agree that we're not talking about the past, but about contemporary English. "Today" is an argumentum ad absurdum because today's language cannot be reliably measured so contemporary is a brief period of time and not a point. There is, no matter which data one considers a better measurement, an irrefutable trend for common usage of Kiev to decline and Kyiv to increase. Depending on what data you choose (and there is no absolutely perfect or "correct" set to rely on despite some editors who claim that there is), that trend may show that Kyiv has reached or (barely) exceeded usage of Kiev, or it may show that the usage of Kyiv is closely approaching the usage of Kiev, or it may show that usage of Kyiv is getting closer to the usage of Kiev, but is still relatively far. As I have said several times, this debate isn't over the trend, but over which set of data we consider more reliable and therefore how close usage of Kyiv is to usage of Kiev at this time. (Note my definition of "contemporary English" because we cannot measure today.) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
^^^ Yup, completely agree. Lev!vich 18:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd say to just skip this rather bogus discussion on "false positives" by avoiding cherry-picking those searches that seem to favour our arguments. You could literally find the inverse trend if you search for "Kiev city" vs. "Kyiv city" ([40]), but these results are rather pointless because these (as well as those for "Kiev/Kyiv Ukraine") are but a small fraction of those for the single terms on their own (and no, there are not that many false positives to justify that). Also note that, up until now, "Kiev" does not need any further description to be associated with Ukraine (so the reference to the country will undoubtely show up less), whereas "Kyiv" may need it as a term that is being largely introduced within English-language sources only in recent times and will, thus, not be so recognizable. As a result, the whole point of "Kyiv Ukraine" being higher than "Kiev Ukraine" in recent times (in which "Kyiv" has been subject of a lot of attention because of the Ukrainian government's attempts to make it the official spelling) may constitute, in itself, a false positive, disregarding the degree of perplexity that it may or may not cause to us. Cheers. Impru20talk 20:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
The "Kiev city" Ngram you linked to doesn't show the inverse trend, it shows the same trend: "Kyiv" overtaking "Kiev". There are year-to-year fluctuations (and 2019 seems to be a tie) but the overall trend is unmistakably towards "Kyiv", and steeply, over the past 2-3 decades. Look: take the very same Ngram you linked to, set the smoothing to "3", and voila: Kyiv citys wins: [41]. That's an example of how useless Ngrams are, how easy it is to manipulate this stuff to show whatever you want, and why we shouldn't base these decisions on OR like ngrams and search results (notwithstanding that I can also supply examples of OR that support my !vote, but it's mostly based no the secondary sources and not the search results). And the false positives are not at all bogus; they are very real and easily identifiable. Just read the first page of search results. The problem with all Google-search-based arguments is: if you search google books for "Kiev", the second result (at least for me) is a book called Modernism in Kyiv, and it's returning for "Kiev". If you search google web for intitle:Kiev, the top 10 results (at least for me) include things like TripAdvisor's page entitled "Kyiv (Kiev)" [42] and the Atlantic Council's article "Kyiv not Kiev" [43]. So... so much for google search results as an indicator of anything. The false positives are so significant and so many that it's just not a reliable indicator of anything. That's why my !vote relies on what reliable sources say on the subject directly (articles like the Atlantic Council's and Columbia Journalism Review's linked above), on examples of usage in RSes today including academic and non-academic, on style guides, and on the official spellings of various international organizations, e.g. the stuff listed at User:Levivich/Kyiv, Talk:Kiev/sources and elsewhere. Lev!vich 01:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The "Kiev city" Ngram I linked shows that "Kiev city" reached its lowest point in 2008, and since then it has been in a stable and consistent growth (compared to "Kyiv city", whose trend is very erratic and unstable). The point I wanted to make, however, was that attempting to win the Ngram argument by using these sort of specific searches with additional words of our liking in order for us to obtain the result we seek is not truly representative of reality: both "Kiev/Kyiv city" and "Kiev/Kyiv Ukraine" represent search totals that are lower to "Kiev/Kyiv" by several orders of magnitude, and building an argument out of such specific searches can lead to misleading conclusions. Same for the "smoothing" you now use: if I set it to 10, "Kyiv city" is above but in an obvious downward trend. If I set it to 25, you obtain the exact opposite. And if I set it to 35, then "Kyiv" is not even close to "Kiev". Your reply and example does actually prove my own argument: that playing around with search results so that these benefit our arguments will lead to skewed results. The solution? To avoid introducing any such specification in the search results. That's how you'll get the most neutral and unbiased ones. Impru20talk 13:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
If it happens a month earlier than it should - is it really such success of opposer team? Moreover when it needs this much talking to prevent it "hours" ahead of its time. Personal attack? Sorry then, I spoke my mind :) 17:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
      • If we search Google Scholar for recent works with the city name in the title, there are few enough results that we can actually read all the results pages. GS since 2020 with intitle:Kiev: 29 results. GS since 2020 with intitle:Kyiv: 86 results. In these small sets I see no false positives, though I may have missed some. Since 2019, the results I get are 76 Kiev, 297 Kyiv. Since 2016: 462 Kiev, 1,230 Kyiv. An online encyclopedia is an academic project; these are academic sources; "Kyiv" is clearly used more often in the titles than "Kiev" for the last 4 years. Shouldn't we follow these sources and use Kyiv in the title of our article, since the academic sources use it in the title of theirs? Lev!vich 02:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Many of the results for "Kyiv" you bring seem to come from works by Ukrainian authors (some of them even working for Ukrainian government agencies, and this just when lookin at the results in the first page). Does indeed look like false positives to me. Impru20talk 08:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
          Wow. Using WP:original research to make WP:systemic bias specific and personal. Impru20, it would be simpler to write national discrimination into the guidelines so we can avoid these protracted naming requests. But seriously, your comment is inappropriate. I’m asking you to reconsider and strike it. —Michael Z. 13:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
???? What's wrong with you?? I raised the issue of Ukrainian government authors because of WP:PRIMARY concerns; obviously those can't be regarded as independent sources on the issue, because the Ukrainian government has been heavily involved in promoting the usage of "Kyiv" over "Kiev" and is a party with an obvious interest here. I don't know what did you understand from my comment to come to the point of accusing me of outright national discrimination and systemic bias, but aside of revealing a deeply concerning (and obsessive) behaviour on your part, this comment of yours constitutes a frivolous personal attack and a reckless breach of WP:AGF that you should be withdrawing ASAP. I told you not to ping me again, and you not only do it to address me in an unrelated discussion but do it to insult me. If this is some kind of harassment, I won't be tolerating it. Impru20talk 14:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Even in my sarcastic response to your unacceptable comment, I avoided resorting to personal attacks against you, or making belittling statements like “What's wrong with you??” or pretending to diagnose “obsessive behaviour on your part.” So please, comment on content, not on the contributor. And I did assume good faith, asking you to reconsider your comment, rather than impugn your character based on what you wrote.
I raised the issue of Ukrainian government authors—no, you said we should not count “works by Ukrainian authors,” with those qualified as “working for Ukrainian government agencies” characterized as especially worse. As if what, Oleksandr Popov of the Institute of Environmental Geochemistry of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine was craftily writing about “Risk Assessment for the Population of Kyiv, Ukraine as a Result of Atmospheric Air Pollution” and using the Journal of Health & Pollution (New York) as a useful idiot to manipulate us into renaming this article? because of WP:PRIMARY concerns—no, the secondary source you cited is Google Scholar, an aggregator and search engine that has collected search results. When you edit (cherry pick) those results, you are conducting original research. What method did you use to blacklist “works by Ukrainian authors”?—by their surnames? Research their place of birth? Test their mitochondrial DNA? Too bad about the German and American collaborators and international journal editors whose works were disqualified because they associated with Ukrainians!
No sir. Not only are we supposed to try to resist our own systemic bias as a group and as individuals, but we sure must not discriminate without any rational basis against national and other identifiable groups. Normalizing this is a step towards bigotry and racism, and I will not let your comment go unchallenged. —Michael Z. 17:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to even care about reading your text-walling here. I'm just going to say that I've not discriminated anyone even by a tiny close, that I've made that VERY clear and that despite doing so you are still assuming bad faith on my part without any evidence but your own personal grudge on me. If you are going to stand up to your accusation, I please ask you to bring this to WP:ANI so that this can be properly addressed. In that case, however, I would carefully warn you to bring serious evidence about me accepting or in some way supporting "bigotry and racism", lest it be turned into a big WP:BOOMERANG on you. I've nothing else to speak with someone like you here. Cheers. Impru20talk 19:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Impru20, please read my actual comment and retract your accusations here and further down this page. But if you still insist that I actually depicted [yourself] as a bigot and a racist (diff) then take action already instead of badmouthing me on this talk page. —Michael Z. 15:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Are you telling me you didn't write this comment, in which you accused me of "national discrimination" (and of "overt anti-Ukrainian bias" in the edit summary)? I immediately denied those claims (diff), yet you kept them on and expanded on them with this reply, outrageous both in the content (Literal quote: "we sure must not discriminate without any rational basis against national and other identifiable groups. Normalizing this is a step towards bigotry and racism, and I will not let your comment go unchallenged") and in the edit summary (yes, you were fairly explicit about "Impru20, discriminating against “works by Ukrainian authors”"). This is overt aspersion-casting pointing to me somehow normalizing "discrimination" and "bigotry and racism". I have never E-VER racially discriminated Ukrainian authors. What I've said (multiple times) is that Ukrainian authors and specially those working in government agencies are not independent, reliable sources. That's not a discrimination of any sort, but an evaluation of sources based on their direct involvement on this topic. Your comments accusing me of discrimination and of somehow acting in a way that normalizes bigotry and racism, and keeping the accusation ongoing despite my multiple calls against it, constitute an eggregious personal attack and an outright violation of WP:AGF, which are further shocking considering you weren't even involved in this particular discussion until I entered it, and that you did so just to insult me. I gave you the opportunity to "challenge" my comment (as you assured yourself you'd do) by bringing your accusations to WP:ANI with proper evidence if you really thought I was making any sort of racial discrimination. You didn't. Now, I'm giving you one last chance to withdraw your statements by either striking them or redacting them. If not, I'll bring this to the notice of the admins watching over this page and, if necessary, to ANI. Impru20talk 17:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Discrimination is a neutral word; we choose sources with discrimination according to their relevance, quality, etc., all the time. But when you suggested discounting “works by Ukrainian authors” that was literally discriminating against Ukrainian . . . nationality, ethnicity, citizenship, or something. Against a Ukrainian viewpoint, anyway. I did not call you bigot or racist, and I took offence when you said I did. I said if we normalize this as a criterion for eliminating sources, it would open up a can of worms on Wikipedia for guidelines that could lead to bigotry and racism, whether systemic or malicious, or whatever. I think the whole idea is the opposite of what our WP:BIAS guideline recommends, which is giving minorities a voice rather than routinely silencing them. I think this is directly relevant on this question, in a subject area where one still routinely sees, for example, the historical Soviet Union referred to as “Russia” and “the Russians,” completely disregarding the existence of a hundred other Soviet nations. I do vehemently believe that your proposal is a bad idea, to the point of extreme frustration, and I stand by every word I wrote. But in the context of this RM which looks ready to be closed, our discussion is mostly academic. So go ahead and have your last word, and lets resolve our disagreement about acceptable sources another time. —Michael Z. 03:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
The obvious reason to give less attention to Ukrainian authors is that it is native speakers of English that define English language usage. Ukrainian authors - like Russian authors, German authors, Vietnamese authors and Bolivian authors - tend not to be native English speakers.
If a hundred million Chinese people pronounce the word "Leeds" with two syllables, that doesn't make that a correct English pronunciation. Even if it's in the middle of an English sentence. If a Belgian starts referring to the port of Zeebruges in English, that doesn't suggest that's a legitimate English-language alternative to Zeebrugge. If an Italian, in the middle of an English sentence, refers to Napoli, that suggests nothing at all about English usage.
English usage is defined by English native speakers, just as Ukrainian usage is defined by Ukrainian native speakers and Swahili usage is defined by Swahili native speakers. This is how linguistics works.
The suggestion that this is bigotry and racism is a serious and unwarranted personal attack. Kahastok talk 19:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The obvious reason to give less attention to Ukrainian authors . . . — that is false, Kahastok, it is not supported by our guidelines, and obviously impossible to apply fairly if you give it a few seconds of thought. You’re disqualifying all sources by “Ukrainian authors” (by what, residency, citizenship, grade-school diploma, male parentage, DNA test?) because they “tend not to be” something? But maybe we should take you seriously, because then it would at least make us stop citing Google searches as evidence here, unless Kahastok wants to comb all 15,000 results and research their authors to determine how many are the vaunted certified “native English speakers.”
I guess you think non-native English speaker Joseph Conrad, and non-native English speaker and Man Booker Prize winner Yann Martel, and thousands of others are not reliable sources to include in Wikipedia? Better start redacting or deleting the articles about them and their works. You are make up reasons to discriminate against authors based on nationality. Better find another open encyclopedia that supports discriminating against its sources this way, because I don’t see any guidelines here that support this.  —Michael Z. 02:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Mzajac When it comes to describing things in Wikipedia, of course thousands of non-native speakers are authoritative. But when it comes to words in our language, no non-native speaker is more authoritative than a native speaker. If a majority of native speakers of English use "Kiev" as the English name of Ukraine's capital (just as they use "borscht" with a "t" on the end), then that is the English name of that city. It doesn't matter one bit what non-native speakers of English from Ukraine call it. Not one bit. So when we talked about the common name of the country north of Greece in English, we excluded from the discussion all Greek and Macedonian sources because of bias and focused on English-speaking sources. So too, it should be obvious to any neutral observer that Ukrainian speakers should not be counted in determining the English name of Ukraine's capital city because 1) English is not their native language and 2) they have a nationalistic POV. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, please don’t use belittling language like “so-called admin.”
The conversation was about counting Google Scholar results. So if we accept your assertion—which I find full of false assumptions and therefore objectionably discriminatory, and not supported by any guideline—then the options are to either manually flag every single author in every search result as “non-native English speaker” and create your own count (while justifying this unjustifiably extremely time-consuming project as not WP:original research), or to discount Google Scholar as a useful source and remove it from the guideline. Which do you choose? —Michael Z. 14:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Mzajac My apologies for the snark. While practical solutions for avoiding obvious POV in contentious situations may not be enshrined in sacred Wikipedia writ, they are nonetheless important to consider. I've been involved with Balkans debates for years and it is an important part of the process to avoid, if at all possible, nationalists or potential nationalists on either side of an issue. The "blind eye" approach that you favor almost always supports the position of a larger country against a smaller one. (The problem was crystal clear in the discussions over "Macedonia" where Greece has more English speakers than Macedonia has and would thus have been able to overwhelm objective debate without conscious moderation to give priority to non-Greek and non-Macedonian evidence.) My point in this discussion is that non-native English should never be used as a measurement of WP:COMMONNAME. That's why it's important to weed out (manually if necessary) English-language works from Ukraine (KyivPost, for example) from search results. Ukrainian speakers of English don't get to determine what common usage is among native speakers of English. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, well, WP:systemic bias is an issue this touches on, and we apply our judgment to try to not favour majority opinions. But both “non-native English speakers” and “nationalists or potential nationalists” appear to be two different and separate ways of labelling people with no concrete criteria. Pretending to be able to filter either out of search results and references is problematic. Then connecting the two to each other is potentially objectionable. Please be clear, are non-native speakers necessarily nationalists, or is it the other way around? Are we discounting sources from native Russian-speakers, Francophones, and Filipino “potential nationalists,” or only “Ukrainians” as Impru20 proposed? Someone will start labelling reliable sources as “nationalist” (used as a dog-whistle for “fascist” by some people who are active in this subject area) or worse based on surnames they see, if it isn’t happening already. Anyway, this chat is just an airing of innuendo unless you make a concrete proposal for the circumstances to apply this rule, the criteria for identifying “non-native English speakers” and “nationalists or potential nationalists,” and the recommended treatment of their reference works. —Michael Z. 17:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Mzajac this is another in a long chain of times that you have pushed this insulting WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS charge against editors who oppose this change based on WP:COMMONNAME and Commonname only. Put that personal attack away because it doesn't apply here and never has. You have also conveniently conflated two different issues in order to claim that I am some kind of anti-Ukrainian. I am most certainly not anti-Ukrainian, I have lived and worked in Ukraine and my wife is Ukrainian. So put that personal attack away as well. When I mention non-native speakers that does not apply just to Ukrainians. That applies to all non-native speakers of English who have no bearing on what something is named in English. Only the English spoken by native speakers applies to judging what something is commonly called in English. That applies equally to speakers of Tahitian, Hausa, Quechua, Mongolian, Basque, and Navajo. As much as possible, we must filter out all sources from countries that do not have English as their native language. When I mention Ukrainian sources in this discussion it is because, like Greeks and Macedonians in the Macedonian naming dispute, they have a vested interest in the outcome and are usually not particularly neutral or objective. You've been around long enough to have experience with this issue on other pages I would assume. Note also that I'm not talking about preventing editors from those groups from participating in the discussions on Wikipedia, just dealing with and putting too much weight on sources (Kyiv Post is a prime example) from parties to the dispute. It is well-documented that the Ukrainian government is and has been actively involved with this very page on Wikipedia. That influence needs to be mediated. Can a reliable source be biased? Of course it can. You seem to think that all works that can have the "reliable source" label are equally reliable and objective in all circumstances for all topics. A textbook on butterflies published by an expert at Taras Shevchenko University can be perfectly reliable for anything about butterflies, but that doesn't make its use of "Kyiv" instead of "Kiev" reliable for a common name in English--first because the author is most likely a non-native speaker of English living in a non-English-speaking country and second because Ukraine and Ukrainians have a vested interest in changing the name. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, wow, really? I am surprised because I have approached your suggestions that I disagree with with an open mind, and I have not accused you of anything. Firstly, systemic bias is systemic. It would be nonsensical for me to accuse someone of it. We all create it because of who we are. We are all subject to it because we work in this system, which is made up of us, and this bias is sneaky because it is mainly invisible to us for that reason. I personally fit most of the criteria counted out as describing the average Wikipedian in WP:BIAS, and most of us do by virtue of it being the average, so this problem is created by the existence of me and rest of the “average” majority—and I don’t see how it can be insulting to say so. And in case you think I’m singling out the systemic majority, obviously, the rest of Wikipedians are subject to systemic bias, and perhaps feel it more, because they have to find a way to work among us. I also haven’t said that you’re anti-Ukrainian. There’s no personal attack here, as long as you can accept that I don’t agree with you on everything.
I’m not conflating two things, in my view. You started talking about non-native English speakers, and I thought that was your beef with some data under consideration, but then you mentioned “nationalists and potential nationalists,” which have nothing to do with language proficiency, so it looked to me like you are conflating two things, and therefore I pointed it out. I thought I made my perception clear.
I’m really trying to discuss this without prejudice, if we can. I’d like you to recognize that. But thanks for continuing the dialogue, despite your having taken offence. I’ll address your arguments on the topic separately if we can agree to continue. —Michael Z. 21:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Mzajac Thank you for explaining what your underlying thoughts are on the issue of "systemic bias". I was understanding something very different. You probably have not accused me of being anti-Ukrainian, but it happens frequently enough to be a "thing". I doubt that we'll come to an agreement so I'm just going to wait and see the result which should be soon. I think that the debate has run its course and posts are simply repetitive. Cheers. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Next you are going to tell me, I should spell my name how native-English speakers spell the same name. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
In English there is a strong preference for using modern personal names as in the original language. Even this is not universal - for example, Hungarian names are routinely inverted.
It does not apply at all to cities - there are lots of examples of English exonyms that are different from the endonyms.
It also doesn't apply to historical personal names. For example, we refer to Philip II of Spain but Felipe VI of Spain. It also isn't a universal rule in other languages. In Latvian, the two candidates in this year's US presidential election will be Donalds Tramps and Džo Baidens. If you were writing in Latvian, then yes, you would be expected to spell your name how native-Latvian speakers spell the same name. Kahastok talk 20:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
(1) Latvian spelling has almost perfect correspondence between graphemes and phonemes. It would be nonsense for that language Wikipedia to use English Spelling. (2) That is a rare case for a wiki. The Spanish Wikipedia has Paul McCartney instead of Paulo, so does the Italian, etc... (3) We do not have to follow the example of other wikis policies. (4) The right of a people for self-naming should tip the scales, even if so slightly. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
That's not just a random Latvian Wikipedia policy. That's just how the Latvian language works. You cite the Spanish Wikipedia? I cite Isabel II del Reino Unido. Both Wikipedias' rules are probably similar to ours. It's just that Spanish native speakers refer to the Queen of the UK as Isabel instead of Elizabeth.
It is native speakers who define how a language works. And it is English native speakers who get to decide what a city is called in English. English native speakers may choose accept the request of a government like that of Ukraine, but there is no reason why they have to. Kahastok talk 20:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
You reacted under my comment, sorry, I won't read it. English sources switched (per evidence), so should Wiki. Simple as that. No transcription, transliteration or "nationalistic" talks necessary.Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The most shocking aspect of it is that the user accusing me of discrimination and of bigotry and racism acknowledged themselves in a (rather rude) comment four days ago about the importance of "independent, reliable English-language sources" ([44]). Ukrainian government-sponsored sources or those written by workers in Ukrainian government agencies are not "independent, reliable English-language sources", no matter whether they are written in English, Spanish, Czech or whatever. They are an involved party on this topic, so they fail to meet both the "independent" and "reliable" checks. How that developed into a full-blown accusation of racism? Well, ask this user about it. I just cannot comprehend it, but I'm willing to bring this issue to the appropiate wiki venues in the event that the accusation, which has been made explicit not one but two times, is not withdrawn. I can withstand the sarcasm, the irony and some minor uncivil considerations; I also have little issue with being systematically targetted by some users not liking my arguments. That's somewhat understandable within the context of such a controversial discussion, and those can be ignored if required. However, I'm sure as hell that I won't allow it to be depicted myself as a bigot and a racist. Cheers. Impru20talk 00:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Boy I have to agree with you there. The editor who made that accusation was way off the deep end... and they are an administrator to boot. That is wrong on so many fronts that I can only shake my head. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

UTC)

  • Oppose - Kiev is still the common name in English, the real point about the implications to Ukrainian should be addressed by prominently noting it, not by changing the article name. Qwirkle (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Commoname criteria supports the move per the sources, even if it is not universal. Commonname policy recognizes that there may be more than commonname, which happens often when the name of someone or something changes - it has changed, and recognizing that is in accord with policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It's really clear that, eventually, this article is going to be moved to "Kyiv", and likewise it's clear that, once that happens, it will never be moved back to "Kiev". At the moment, there may not be a definitive case to be made for one versus the other, but it's a dumb waste of community time to leave it as it is given that inevitably one of these RMs is going to result in a move and the new title sticking. --JBL (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It is time to stop clinging to Soviet-era naming preferences. The World and the sources have modernised, the Wikipedia shall follow suit. Myanmar > Burma, Eswatini > Swaziland, and so on. ValarianB (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


General discussion

  • (moved from Survey section by Lev!vich 16:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)) Comment just to point out that, since I'm not seeing any substantial change when compared to the situation in place during the previous iteration of this RM, I'm maintaining my oppose !vote from back then. Google Trends results still show "Kiev" clearly outperforming "Kyiv" in common usage in the last year everywhere (even with a slight upward trend in recent weeks), just as is shown in Ngram (some have pointed out that Ngram only shows results up to 2019; well, this is an argument that is actually against any move right now, since more time would be required to see whether a change in common usage settles in or not. Sustained usage is required for a change to become notable under Wikipedia standards). As I said back in July, while there may be evidence that a change in common usage may happen in the future, sources do not point to this having happened just yet. More so, those even hint at trends on common usage having stabilized again, with "Kiev" still in the lead by a great deal. Remember that Wikipedia doesn't lead; it follows. Some people may be eager to see the article title being changed on the basis of "Kyiv" being more used in sources, but this doesn't mean Wikipedia should act hastily or prematurely just because "Kiev" is (and has been for a long time) the "wrong" version for some people.
P.S. Note that I'm also aware of the existing list showing a lot of sources in support of "Kyiv"; as far as I have seen, that list was heavily edited by pro-Kyiv editors who even overrode anyone adding any source in favour of "Kiev" (and those that were added have been edited to be presented in such a way that it looks like those also favour "Kyiv"). It should probably be handled with care in terms of reliability and at the risk of those handling it (this said, I just wanted to clarify some points and update them to the re-opened RM; I've no interest in engaging into a lengthy, never-ending discussion, really. Thx). Impru20talk 21:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This is so weird. I was just about to copy the above comment to a separate section, but you beat me to it by seconds, it seems. Wild. Anyway, it's probably best that unthreaded comments from those who have already !voted 2 months ago, be added, here, to this section. Just to make life easier for the prospective closer. El_C 22:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The discussion below, as uncomfortable as it may be, was still in response to my comment, so it didn't feel right to deprive it of its context. It's entirely off-topic and mostly resolved (the IP is barred from participating here, and I chose not to revert the move to avoid further conflict), so I thought that a collapse would feel better suited to settle the issue. Let's hope the discussion is now kept on topic. Thanks. Impru20talk 23:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
  • This seems like a veiled attempt to game the system by Impru20 by voting twice <redacted>. If Impru20, who already voted in in July, now gets to essentially "re-vote" by just putting a Comment header and then saying in their "comment" that I'm maintaining my XYZ vote from prior discuxxion because of ABC, then this should be allowed for everyone else who already voted in July. <redacted>.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Your accusation against me of "gaming the system" is casting an aspersion, and should be struck out. In a typical recent month, I make about 1250 edits. Do you, 73.75.115.5, remember what you wrote 1,250 edits ago? No, you can't, because you've only made than 500 edits in your entire career. Strike it out, please, or I will. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@73.75.115.5: I'm truly appaled by this reply from you considering how clear did I was in my comment. I have not "voted twice". I made it outstandingly clear that I had already voted in July, and that I was just merely summarizing and maintaining my opinion in light of circumstances, with some notes I wished to highlight. Everyone is entitled to post a comment in the discussion if they wish. Your complaints and accusations are absurd and uncalled for, and I'd appreciate that the discussion does not get defiled with things like these. This is it, I'm out. Impru20talk 01:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Also, what you did here is bad enough and against WP:TALKO. El_C only struck the !vote from Beyond My Ken's comment. You just simply don't get to re-edit it and strike the whole comment because you didn't like their opinion. That's a change in meaning and should have been done either with BMK's or with the admin's consent. Impru20talk 01:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I see that there is no reaction to Impru20's actions from either Kahastok (who seemingly took on themselves a duty of clerking this discussion) or El_C (sysop who has taken responsibility for running logistics of this discussion), so I am going to reach out to other members to understand their opinion of Impru20's actions. @Mzajac:, as an experience editor and sysop who is likely very familiar with WP rules around voting in discussions, do you consider it fair that User:Impru20 made 3 separate statements of voting against the move: 1) first one on 19:49, 1 July 2020 (with a leading title Oppose, diff), 2) second one on 10:46, 2 July 2020 (with a leading title Comment, diff and 3) third one on 21:11, 29 August 2020 (with a leading title Comment, diff)? Does it seem fair to you that an editor could create three separate voting paragraphs (titling one as Oppose and two as Comment) essentially phrasing the same statement three times in three different voting paragraphs as to why they are voting against this move? Shouldn't one editor be allowed to just vote once (and subsequently, they can add all their comments under their original vote using : indenting, because otherwise they create an unfair "quantitative illusion" of three votes against the move, when in fact this is just one vote?--73.75.115.5 (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@El_C and Kahastok: I please ask that 73.75.115.5 be banned from further participating in this discussion, as per the numerous WP:TALKO/WP:TALK#REPLIED violations (including striking others' comments and re-editing their own comments two months after their original posting with an obvious lack of transparency ([45] [46])), the clear bad faith-assuming behaviour above (which is only polluting the discussion and deviating it from its RM nature) and what looks like an obsession and near-harassing behaviour on their part against other users just for not agreeing with their opinions. I'll be fine to disengage myself from here the time that the aspersion-casting on myself is stopped. Impru20talk 17:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not up to me to ban people. I am very badly placed to do so because I am involved in the discussion. I do think that the IP may have been better advised to learn the ropes before launching into a controversial discussion like this, and I do think they need to review WP:TPG and behavioural guidelines like WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS.
To be clear, I did the clerking on the SPA thing because somebody needed to. I am not preventing other people from making their own procedural comments where appropriate.
In answer to the IP, no, there is nothing at all wrong with Impru20 commenting more than once, provided that they do not "support" or "oppose" more than once. If they do, the correct response is to raise the point politely. Remember that this is not a vote, this is a discussion. Closers are assumed to be clever enough to notice who has posted what. Kahastok talk 17:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I’m not going to take any administrative actions, since I’ve been involved in discussions and accused of bad faith here, so I can anticipate how that would go. This is an unusual situation, but having three bolded bullet points in one RM is not supported by the guidelines, not expected, and potentially confusing. So I think it is reasonable to ask User:Impru20 to de-bold two of them and clearly label all three at the front, maybe with “[my comment 2 of 3]” or something, immediately. If that’s not acceptable, then let’s get a neutral third opinion. Because this is disputed, it’s possible that a neutral admin would just move the extraneous bullet points to a separate section or nuke them, so let’s maybe follow my advice. And nobody do this again. —Michael Z. 06:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
@Mzajac: May I ask which guidelines is my comment going against? I say this because in my near-9 years in Wikipedia I've just lost the count on how many times I've seen people posting comments (even more than one, yes. May not be that frequent, but surely not "unusual" either) separate from their !votes in discussions to clarify or highlight some key aspects worth of consideration (many times, that is even required as per WP:TALK#REPLIED over the unseriousness of re-editing older comments with replies). Even I have done that myself a couple times without any issue, and with all people involved seeing it as obvious than that was not a new !vote. This is the first time ever that I see anything close to this.
I've already made it clear (not once, but twice, and it'll be thrice with this comment I'm posting) that this was not a new !vote, and with all due respect but you have probably been one of the most involved users both on the topic and with the IP, so I can't really take your opinion as neutral. What gives? A heavily involved IP user—who has been unilaterally re-structuring the discussion non-stop ever since its re-opening to make it go their way ([47] [48] [49]); (and no, WP:TPL cannot serve as an excuse to turn a discussion into one user's personal playground)—can come here throwing a lot of bullshit and unfounded accusations against other users ([50] [51]), and the burden is on those to prove what they've already stated? I can point to a couple guidelines than that behaviour is in violation of.
Worth noting is how El_C and Paine Ellsworth handled the issue of BMK's new !vote above (and that was a new !vote), just by leaving a note to the user and striking only the "oppose" text in their new !vote ([52] [53]), without any further action on the rest of the comment (despite the IP later attempting on their own to strike it whole). In my case, there is not even any "support" or "oppose" to strike, because that was not even intended as that. I consider it highly unlikely for any uninvolved admin to move or re-imagine my comment beyond that, lest it be interpreted as a violation of WP:TALKO. In any case, I don't think that it's serious for the RM discussion to be brought out of scope like this just because of one person's obvious attempt to cloud what, otherwise, is a reasonable argumentative piece on the issue. Cheers. Impru20talk 09:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Didn't strike BMK's comment mostly because the next !voting editor's rationale relied upon it. What I hope will be remembered is that a lot of good, well-thinking editors are involved in this on both sides of the issue. It takes me back to the New York (state) issues that took so long to finally resolve. It's not easy remaining neutral on a controversial subject like Kyiv vs. Kiev, but I'm doing my best. I just ask that everyone keep their eyes on the prize and focus on the merits of this spelling challenge. Those who want "Kyiv" will keep trying, and those who want it to remain "Kiev" will keep rebutting. We sincerely hope that some good will come out of it! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I on my part do not undervalue the merits of "Kyiv", even acknowledging that it may become of common usage in the future (I just think that we're not there yet, and that Wikipedia must not try to lead the way and influence such usage). But I cannot agree with some of the tactics being used here for achieving the aim of moving the article. Those who want "Kyiv" are on their right to keep trying, but always abiding to Wikipedia rules and not engaging in foul play. An unconformatable discussion on behavioural issues has developed right here just because of the rant of the RM's original nominator (who has been blocked from further participating here precisely because of such behaviour) and an uncomprehensible effort from other users to amplify their unfair demands. Impru20talk 19:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: This is just outrageous. You are not just an involved party on the issue (thus, not neutral), but the fact that you have worked closely with both the IP and Mzajac on this topic (for example, in the redaction of Talk:Kiev/sources) makes your unilateral edit the more appaling and deeply controversial. You didn't even care to give an advance warning or anything despite I having explicitly required to be presented the exact policy or guideline the comment was violating! Beyond My Ken's comment was not moved outside the main discussion. This is the first comment in either one of them (counting both the July and the current one) that has been moved this way. Are you people seriously intent on turning this into a polluted environment where the opinions you don't agree with are just overridden? Seriously? Impru20talk 17:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Worth noting is that the IP has been blocked from editing this talk page for one month ([54]), precisely because of their recent behaviour here. This included their accusation on both BMK and myself, the one which has seemingly been the motivation for my comment being moved out of place by an involved party. What gives? Impru20talk 17:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Procedural note on adding RM details

In fact, editing own comments after these have received replies is strongly discouraged as per WP:TALK#REPLIED, because it may misrepresent others' replies as it deprives them of their original context. Impru20talk 13:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@Kahastok, RE your question: all I added to the RM (diff) was to A) bring the link to details around ban/moratorium on changing the name of the article from Oct 2019 to June 2020 (back in July there was no need for explicitly providing links to those ban/moratorium discussion in the RM because they used to be part of Talk:Kiev/naming/old discussion list (which is permanently listed on top of this Talk:Kiev page), but on Aug 13, 2020 those Ban/Moratorium details were hidden/removed (diff) and B) added a link to Talk:Kiev/sources that summarize the same points as described in the RM, but more exhaustively and with better formatting.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
None of that is accepted practice for editing your own comments. Not when it's two months later. These points were not part of your original text and you are not allowed to pretend that they were.
If you wish to add new information, you need to be transparent about it. That means, you need to revert back to your original text, and, if you wish to make extra points, you need to make them in a separate post with a new signature. And if you decline to revert the new text, you may find others reverting it for you. Kahastok talk 16:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good Kahastok, this shall be done now--73.75.115.5 (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Procedural note on clerking

I thought it'd be useful to explain this. I've gone through clerking some of the canvassing concerns.

I've applied for {{spa}} for editors with few edits prior to the first edit to this page.

Some editors had substantial editing histories here, but had become dormant by 1 July and suddenly appeared that day to vote here. The literal phrase "has made few or no other edits outside this topic" seems somewhat misleading in these cases. I have used {{canvassed}} for these, because it is more accurate in implication. I have also used {{canvassed}} in one case where the editor was not dormant but where we have strong evidence that they were canvassed.

Some editors have become more active since their first contribution here, but were dormant at the time they first posted here. I have based the clerking on the position when they first posted here. Kahastok talk 21:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Kahastok. Your work and explanation are appreciated. El_C 07:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
User:Kahastok, I would also suggest adding the {{spa}} tag to User:73.75.115.5 since they have virtually no edits in their history outside this one single issue. That's the very definition of a single purpose account. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
User:TaivoLinguist not sure what other clerking activities you are asking of Kahastok - they already tagged my account with {{spa}} (diff) when they did their original clerking of this thread on Aug 28.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, missed the fine print. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Let me join El C in thank you Kahastok. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Extended discussion on clerking Michael's collapsed comments. Resolved, as the editor has now restored their own comments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Kahastok, a !vote by Mzajac has been accidentally hidden. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I am reluctant to do any more than the basic level of clerking that I've already done because I am involved in the substantive discussion.
If it's the comment I think you're referring to, I had forgotten it was there, but please see this comment from User:El_C, which demonstrates to me that it was actually deliberately hidden back in July. Since we've now both pinged Mzajac I'm sure he'll be happy to make his views clear if he does not think that they are already clear. Kahastok talk 17:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Kahastok: Given that you have taken the clerking duties for this discussion, I join Coffeeandcrumbs in asking you to please refactor (i.e., unhide and move it as the last comment in the July discussion, because Mzajac clearly stated that this was intended as a last vote in that discussion and the only reason it did not appear there was an edit conflict between Mzajac and El_C that happened when El_C suspended discussion on July 2) Mzajac's vote (diff). In his original collapsing of Mzajac's vote User:El_C explicitly said that when voting resumes Mzajac's vote should be unhidden.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
That's not what El_C actually said though, is it? El_C told Mzajac, When the RM discussion resumes, you may refactor.
There is (unsurprisingly) nothing there that invites random involved editors to mess about with Mzajac's comment. Kahastok talk 08:43, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
@Kahastok: I think you are reading too much into the verbiage that El_C used, in other words when El_C said When the RM discussion resumes, you may refactor, he did not mean "you" as in Mzajac himself, but more as any editor involved in this discussion. Consequently, Kahastok I re-iterate the ask from Coffeeandcrumbs and me to unhide Mzajac's vote.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Without an explicit comment on the matter from User:El_C, then the plain meaning of "you" as second person singular referring to User:Mzajac must be used. It is you, anon IP, who are reading too much into El_C's comment when you try to apply a second person pronoun in the context of a single editor to mean "anyone". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Just to be absolutely clear on this point. It is obvious to me that "you" in this context means Mzajac. Not, anyone who feels like it. I have looked several times, and I cannot reconcile this comment as implying that any editor can move the comment if they feel like it.
It is Mzajac who gets to decide what Mzajac says in this discussion. Not me, not a random IP.
As such I regard this as a disruptive breach of WP:TPG. I feel it is also worth noting at this stage that User:Barkeep49 unblocked you on the basis on the basis "that there will be no disruptive editing from me on Talk:Kiev". Kahastok talk 18:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi User:Kahastok, when user:TaivoLinguist removed my clerking of Mzajac's vote diff, they also removed the comment I did when doing that clerking that, quote, Kahastok, since you have not done clerking duties to unhide User:Mzajac's vote, I have taken it upon myself to do those clerking duties. As I said above, I think you are reading too much into El_C's verbiage, and what he meant was that any editor can uncollapse and move Mzajac's vote, once RM is unsuspended.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC). Also, Kahastok, I strongly refute your accusation of a breach of WP:TPG by me for merely doing clerking duties on this talk page diff - I have asked for an opinion about my clerking from sysop Mzajac (diff), so let's wait for his reply on this.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Please explain what part of WP:TALKO allows you to overrule Mzajac on the question of where his comment goes on this page. Kahastok talk 19:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Kahastok when User:Mzajac made their voting comment they were very explicit in saying that it was intended to be included in the Survey section (and not anywhere else), and the only reason that this voting comment did not get added to the Survey section, was because of, quote edit conflict that [User:El_C] caused when they shut down the requested move (diff). I reiterate that I strongly refute your accusation of a breach of WP:TPG by me for merely doing clerking duties on this talk page--73.75.115.5 (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Anon IP, it doesn't matter one hill of beans what you think User:Mzajac intended or even what they explicitly wrote. User:El_C gave Mzajac the right to reformat their comment by saying "you can reformat it". El_C did not give you or any other editor that permission. If Mzajac thinks it's important to move the comment (we don't "vote" in Wikipedia), then they will. But you don't have that privilege. We have explained this to you multiple times and there should be no confusion on your part that this edit by you is, indeed, disruptive and controversial, despite what you wrote here about being confused. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
User:TaivoLinguist WP:Wikipeida is not experiment in law, and we should not try and limit productive editing/discussions on Wikipedia, because we have some specific interpretation of an enwiki guideline (or in this case a sysop's comment regarding condition to uncollapse another user's vote). I said previously that when sysop El_C said "When the RM discussion resumes, you may refactor", by "you" they clearly meant any editor who will be doing clerking upon unsuspention of this discussion.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
And Wikipedia is not an experiment in reading someone else's mind or warping English grammar to say what you want it to say. El_C's comment is clear and completely unambiguous when he used "you" in reference to the person he was speaking to--Mzajac. "You", anon IP, are the only editor who is trying to twist El_C's words to make them mean what you want them to mean. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
@TaivoLinguist, Mzajac just responded (diff) on their talk page they will will add a separate vote under the RM soon; hopefully, when they do that they will also clarify whether they consider my clerking of their their July 2 vote diff a violation of WP:TPG (as has been unjustly implied by some editors here).--73.75.115.5 (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Whether or not you get a pat on the head for your disruption here is immaterial. The point, carefully described to you by several editors, that you have willfully ignored has always been that it was User:Mzajac's choice and not yours. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I have commented about this at my user talk but I am of the firm, uninvolved administrator, opinion that no one except Mzajac should be messing with their participation here. The uncollapsing shouldn't have happened. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Double voters

I've added {{duplicate vote}} in a couple of cases. There may be others, I haven't searched every voter's sig, so if I've missed some please tell me or use {{duplicate vote}} yourself or whatever. I also welcome review for these cases.

As an involved editor I am not willing to go further than using {{duplicate vote}} in obvious cases, and I would strongly advise other involved editors to take the same view. Obviously User:Barkeep49 and User:El_C may choose to do something else, and that is their prerogative.

Both double voters that I have found are people who voted in July and again in September. This is a reasonably easy mistake to make, so it's not surprising that some people are making it. Kahastok talk 19:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it is an easy mistake and could be easy to not even realize it's a continuous discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion around Suspended Requested move 1 July 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago195 comments26 people in discussion
Prior discussion

Cassette tape

Fyunck(click) Can you read? You can call it whatever you like, a "plastic thingy with reels", I don't care. But I hate when illiterate WP:COMMONNAME takes over proper technical or official name as an article title, this is idiotic. Wikipedia has redirects, so you can have a redirect from "plastic thingy with reels" to Compact Cassette. Likewise, you can have redirect from Kiev to Kyiv, and it is still searchable. For lay people Wikipedia became the source of information, not an aggregator, and thus it encourages incorrect word usage, skewing the statistics that everyone likes to appeal to when bringing up WP:COMMONNAME argument. Sick. Mikus (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Mikus The question is, Can YOU read? Wikipedia's rules are plain as day and expounded in WP:COMMONNAME. If you don't like it, then go there and try to get it changed. Otherwise, either shut up and follow the rules or get off Wikipedia. My level of rudeness is simply matching yours. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist What rudeness? Anyway, I am trying to find a procedure to appeal/contest a Wikipedia rule, can you point me to the right direction? Mikus (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The procedure is exactly the same as it was when you did it three months ago. But unless you have something significant and new to add to your previous proposal, editors may well tire of the same proposal being made repetitiously. Kahastok talk 20:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I actually did that. Forgot about it. So... no one commented? Bruh. EDIT: found the thread. Thanks. Mikus (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think you're overreaching if you start out with claiming "Common name is wrong". I'm certainly in favor of softening it and strengthening the Official name in certain circumstances. Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day, and sometimes we have to settle for a compromise if it's a move in the right direction. I'd be happy to discuss a strategy on your or my talk page if you wish. - BilCat (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, my troll mode turns people off :) Thanks for inviting to figure out the strategy. Mikus (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
What rudeness? I guess that's the problem in the world today... rudeness gets used so much that you become numb to it and don't recognize it anymore. Sad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the proper "technical or official name" of the city as per the Ukrainian Constitution would be "City of Kyiv", not just "Kyiv". I am not sure if this debate is really warranted. Impru20talk 20:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The official name of the city isn't even that. The official name of the city is Київ, not "Kyiv" and not "Kiev". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
"Kyiv" is the official Latinisation. The Ukrainian government adopted Kyiv as its standard Latinisation in 1995 [55] Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


Two more years of lockdown

Cripes. Of course there are regular move requests, because this page should be moved. That's an indicator of WP:CONSENSUS. But now moves and free discussion of them are being banned with the justification that there are a lot of them. What are they going to do next, hold a Victory Day parade and a popular referendum? For reference, here’s what an argument for the move might look like:

The content reasons for or against the move should not be discussed here. El_C 17:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support  Please update this article title, because that’s what Wikipedia’s naming guidelines warrant. Articles are supposed to be titled by the name commonly used by up-to-date, reliable English-language sources. (Please ignore the folk wisdom that Google search results tell us what this should be.) I’ve excerpted relevant text below, but I suggest you read and understand the entire relevant sections or pages in context. Be aware that some voters here have misinterpreted the guidelines badly, and propped up some straw-man arguments. Updating this title will save Wikipedia the embarrassment of being out of touch with modern scholarship, including authoritative international standards, popular sources of information, and the English-language media in general.
    • WP:TITLE: “Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject.” Kyiv meets the other characteristics of a good title, including Recognizability: Kyiv is used in all international standards, by international organizations (and therefore, e.g., in aviation and adopted in all airports), and in current media at least as much as Kiev, and the trend of adoption will continue.
      • WP:COMMONNAME: “generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources),” “it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals.” Thanks to the nominator for doing the work of gathering this information and listing many of them above. Also see the summary in the article, at Kiev#Name. These sources overwhelmingly support this move.
        • COMMONNAME can not be determined by a Google search! “The Google Scholar and Google Books search engines can provide helpful results, if parameters are properly set,” but “raw counts from Google must be considered with extreme caution, if at all.” And see WP:GOOGLE on how to find the actual number of search results, because “hit counts reported by Google are only estimates, which in some cases have been shown to necessarily be off by nearly an order of magnitude.”
      • WP:NAMECHANGES: “we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change.”
    • WP:PLACE: “a widely accepted English name, in a modern context,” “For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed”: English-language sources have all changed their practice since the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and start of the Russo-Ukrainian War.
    • WP:MODERNPLACENAME: “For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name . . . rather than an older one.” “Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage. That can be assessed by reviewing up-to-date references to the place in a modern context in reliable, authoritative sources such as news media, other encyclopedias, atlases and academic publications as well as the official publications of major English-speaking countries, for example the CIA World Factbook.”
    • WP:WIAN: “Disinterested, authoritative reference works are almost always reliable if they are current,” “English-language news media,” “standard histories and scientific studies.” Recommends a list of specific sources, which support the move.

 —Michael Z. 2020-07-02 15:20 z

User:El_C, this was not meant to be a discussion of content reasons, but my resolution for my edit conflict that you caused when you shut down the requested move. Shall I move that to a separate heading? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2020-07-02 17:53 z
When the RM discussion resumes, you may refactor. Until then, my clerking against discussing the views for or against the move in this section are to be expected. El_C 17:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
There has been 13 failed move requests. At some point these become disruptive and a timesink, so some throttling is due. El_C 15:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
No, there has been a “moratorium” and requests and discussion have been summarily removed here for six months. Of course there are attempts at move requests because the page title is out of date. And there will continue to be more, so what do you intend, freeze for two years and then for another decade because there are a lot of “disruptive” move requests? It’s the high-handed censorship of discussion that is disruptive and against Wikipedia’s principles. Please un-close the discussion.
As you requested in the close template above, I have started a discussion on your talk page: #Clampdown_on_Talk%3AKiev. Let’s please reconsider this, or move on to a move review. —Michael Z. 2020-07-02 15:32 z
  • Two years is absolutely unreasonable. Because the most recent RM wasn't allowed to run its course, a new one should be allowed in the near future. At that point, maybe we can think about a more reasonable moratorium if necessary. Calidum 15:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
It just seems like too many move requests lately, all failing. But, you're right, I'm caught up. New move request will happen soon. I'll update the request to read that. El_C 16:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
No, User: El_C, there has been a six-month “moratorium” imposed on this talk page. All move requests or even mention of moving have been summarily closed or deleted. There have been no move requests considered for six months (although they were being shut down pretty quickly before that). —Michael Z. 2020-07-02 17:19 z
I'm looking at the 13 move requests in their totality over the years in my evaluation. El_C 17:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
So, User:El_C, thirteen requests since this article was created in 2002. The usage of this city’s name has been demonstrably changing at an accelerated rate throughout this whole time, especially after “watershed events,” as the naming conventions refer to them, taking place in 1991, in 2004–05, and from 2014 continuously to the present. So I don't see why it’s a big deal that a request to test the consensus on renaming has taken place every seventeen months. As the need to catch up to other references becomes more blatantly obvious, the demand to update will and should naturally increase. In this context a series of moratoriums spurred by requests create a feedback loop working directly against consensus. Anyway, thanks for taking the time. —Michael Z. 2020-07-02 21:02 z
(edit conflict) Almost all of the sources provided to back up the late RM are already previous to the precedent RM in October/November 2019, yet that one still ended in a strong consensus against the move. No proof has been provided that supports the claim that there has been a change in common usage in the meantime (and they cannot be provided, because the change hasn't happened yet). There is evidence that usage may change in the future, but not that it's already happened, and this is what should matter in the end. Politically-loaded and POVish arguments claiming that there is some underground cause against Ukraine are not helpful to convince people that this is not in reality an attempt to right a great wrong/turn Wikipedia into a means through which such a common usage can be achieved. Pretending to ignore established consensus when no new facts can be provided and filling RMs repeatedly until opposers to the move desist out of pure boredom is openly disruptive and a refusal to get the point.
I think that two years may be a little bit excessive. However, there are strong concerns now that a new canvassing effort may be prepared for next time and that we'll be seeing a new RM the day the moratorium expires, disregarding whether common usage has actually changed or not, so it's obvious that there must be a reasonable break until a new RM can take place. This is an intricate and problematic issue, indeed. Impru20talk 16:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Impru20, your Google trends is an indicator of search terms people have used. It has nothing to do with the “prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources” that WP:COMMONNAME guides to use. Yours is a straw man argument. —Michael Z. 2020-07-02 17:23 z
As per WP:MPN, Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage. This is a mere reiteration of what WP:COMMONNAME already establishes. Since many of the sourced claims have happened only recently, you cannot establish the prevalence of the use of the new term over the old one in "independent, reliable English-language sources", since you'll still find a lot of sources from 2019 or even 2020 still using "Kiev". Indeed, you can claim that a change is taking place, but not that it has affected current "common global usage". If we are going to evaluate each other's arguments, I can dub yours as an enormous red herring attempt to focus attention away from the true deciding element here. Impru20talk 17:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Please, both of you, stop discussing the reasons for or against the move in this section. I won't collapse this comment thread, for now, but please take note. El_C 17:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The RM above was made completely untenable by the off-wiki canvassing and I would certainly endorse its closure.

The reason for the last moratorium was that this was coming up over and over and dominating the talk page. The consensus was consistently against moving but nothing else could get done. And it had reached the stage where the requests were so repetitious that new analysis of the evidence wasn't happening - ironically, making consensus for the move much less likely. Part of the aim of the moratorium was to give some time so that editors were looking at the issues with fresh eyes.

Also, we should ask Arbcom to desysop the admin who thought it was a good idea to canvass this off-wiki, which was a gross breach of trust. Given the nature of the evidence, this may have to be handled by email. Kahastok talk 16:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned on my talk page, I'm fine letting another AE experienced admin take over this request. But the provisional 2-year moratorium after it remains in effect. El_C 16:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
On July 2, 2020 El_C, who has admin (sysop) rights on enwiki closed the RM from July 1, 2020 and, at same time, unilaterally imposed a 2-year moratorium on RM for Kyiv. No discussion, no consensus, simply unilateral decision of an admin; completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. If this is not abuse of sysop powers to enact Censorship, then I don't know what is. We should ask Arbcom to desysop the admin, who thought it was a good idea to unilaterally impose a 2-year moratorium, without whatsoever consulting enwiki community.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
You do whatever you see fit, IP. But I challenge that the DS more than give me the authority to do so. El_C 16:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
As another uninvolved administrator I agree with El C that he has the authority to issue a two year moratorium on this discussion by the authority granted under discretionary sanctions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@El C and Barkeep49: Apologies if I was unclear in my wording - I agree that legally speaking El_C had power granted by Arbcom via WP:ARBEE to unilaterally impose a 2 year ban on RM, citing WP:ARBEE powers. What I meant by my comment, was that I'm appalled an enwiki admin actually did it (and it's not personal to El_C, I would've said the same thing to any admin who would propose this). @El_C/Barkeep49 I apologize if I sounded harsh with my "desysop" comment, but that's just the immediate reaction I had (and I'm pretty sure that's reflective of how others feel in this discussion). @Barkeep49 my proposed solution, is that an uninvolved admin reopens the RM immediately, with an oversight on any contribution from "sleeper accounts" and such (to counter any canvassing attempts from both sides - pro-Kiev'ers and pro-Kyiv'ers). Also, citing someone mentioning this discussion on Twitter and because of it throwing accusations of WP:Canvassing is the worst solution a sysop could choose in this situation, simply because this issue has been very hot starting in 2019/2020 and any RM request now (or any time in the future) would inevitably have people discussing it on social media like Facebook/Twitter.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
As a discretionary sanction action (even if El C has not formally logged it as such yet) it would be inappropriate for another sysop to just reverse it. The good news for you is that El C has indicated an openness to re-opening the discussion under similar conditions to what you propose. And FWIW, I agree that whenever this discussion is had it will face real challenges posed by canvassing. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
As mentioned on my talk page, there will need to be some time. Time to mitigate by tagging sleepers. And time for the Arbitration Committee to investigate allegations of which I have no idea about. El_C 17:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
El_C, apologies for being blunt, but that sounds like someone is trying to invoke some legal jumbo-mumbo to artificially delay the discussion. The logistics of how to enforce "tagging sleepers" seems trivial and I am sure any admin on enwiki knows how do it now, i.e., there's no need to "wait" for someone to create some fancy template for it. And regarding your point about the need for Arbcom to "investigate canvassing allegations on Twitter" - again that sounds like someone's trying to artificially delay the discussion, since we all know that Arbcom hearing could take months or even longer.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
There was no such intent and I reject the insinuation that it is otherwise. El_C 19:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Kahastok: To be fair and as far as I was able to ascertain, the involved admin was not the one that publicly called for the canvassing to happen at first. Still, he obviously supported the call and participated on it, and his gloating about his wiki position may have been counterproductive by helping further such a behaviour. Heeding Serial Number's advice, I've already emailed him all info I could gather on the issue so that it can be properly presented to Arbcom if required.
On the IP's comment above (seriously, that's unhelpful and outrightly disruptive on the issue at hand), considering its short editing history in Wikipedia, its involvement in the canvassing-ridden RM and WP:ADVOCACY concerns behind its actions, I question whether it should be blocked to prevent further disruption. Impru20talk 17:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
In that case, I'll accept that I may be shooting from the hip a bit too much. But Arbcom should take a look and make their own decision. Kahastok talk 17:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Off-wiki canvassing is a reason to protect the discussion -- to restrict who can participate -- not to shut it down. This is the world we live in. We can safely assume that every contentious Wikipedia discussion will be subject to off-wiki canvassing of some sort. We need to figure out how to deal with it rather than shutting down good faith discussion. Also disagree with the 2 year ban. This is, AFAIR, the first one of these I've participated in, and that because it was listed at CENT.
    If you're going to shut this down, then start a new thread, reopen it with more structure/protections, list it at CENT, and say it's the last one for a year. Shutting down discussion and saying no more discussions can be opened seems problematic. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The issue is that, in this case, there were preparations for the canvassing before the RM was opened. It was not a good-faith discussion which incidentally happened to suffer from canvassing; rather, evidence points to the canvassing having been planned alongside the discussion, so the good-faith element is entirely missing from the RM's inception. Impru20talk 17:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Just wondering, how are you ever going to stop that from happening? Right this second it's two years. Every Tom, Dick, and Mary outside canvasser and non-good faith editor will have 2 July 2022 circled and locked by then. By putting down a date that an RM can occur, that's the date it will occur. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
It's a tricky call. You could attempt for uninvolved admins to intervene and have them review any attempt to open a RM on the issue, to ascertain whether there is new evidence for a change in common usage that did not exist at the time of previous RMs. If that's the case, the RM could proceed and discussion could take place. Canvassing is still a risk, but at the very least that would mean that the date of such RM is not circled and locked in time, but a flexible one that would remove any attempt at organizing such canvassing beforehand. Plus, should there be any new such evidence of a change in usage having taken place, maybe the RM could be successful and we'd skip all of this drama. Right now, what we should be working to prevent is the opening of RMs just for the sake of it. Impru20talk 18:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Am I showing my age too much if I refer to the Gdansk/Danzig vote?
This isn't the first time we've faced these problems, and there are ways of dealing with them. But I think we will need some significant outside oversight whatever we do. Kahastok talk 18:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. Discussion shut down after two days? Discussion shut down for two years? Shame. Shame. Shame shame shame. Cui bono? Who's afraid of possible (! just possible !) change? Week long discussion every 6 months - so what?! Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

When we have a bad faith opening and outside canvassing then other issues are at stake. This was not turning into a normal discussion because of that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
No, we are not going to have 20 RMs in the next decade. If that is your expectation, then I'm sorry to disappoint. El_C 19:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Sooo.. 13 would be cool?   Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Bar Mitzvah! El_C 19:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, when you look at it that way, lot of kids would be really happy if upon their Bar Mitzvah they were banned from going to temple for two years. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I live to give. But seriously, one reason the 2-year moratorium is provisional is in the interest of BEANS. El_C 20:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I didn't get it at first (back when I thought today was still Wednesday) but now I smell what you're stepping in, and I encourage everyone else not to publicly worry too much about timing and rules and all that. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
(ec) Thank you, User:El_C for taking charge. The fact of the RM wasn't necessarily the problem--I full expected to have a new RM filed at 1 minute after midnight, 1 July, Eastern European Summer Time. I probably wrote as much at some point in the last six months. The problems that this particular RM had were:
  • It was filed by an anon IP with no editing history, but seemed to have been written by someone with experience. The RM smelled like rotten fish from its filing.
  • It was clearly being fueled by new editors and editors who have NEVER before edited on any related topic being summoned by illegal canvassing (obvious even before the Twitter evidence came to light).
  • Then the Twitter evidence of canvassing that came to light. It was public until the tweeters discovered that the game was up and then it was hidden. If it was aboveboard, then why hide it?
If you think a new RM is appropriate, then so be it, but please, please, please tightly monitor it and perhaps even check the editing credentials of any participant. I certainly wouldn't object if you limited participation to only those editors who have participated here before--on both sides of the issue. This summoning of participants from around and outside the Wikiverse who have no history on the page is classic canvassing. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, TaivoLinguist. Yes, close monitoring would be a given, for sure. As to what conditions are set out for a new or reopeoned discussion, I admit that that is still up in the air. To a large part due to some of the concerns you've just raised above. El_C 20:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The close was not helpful. It would have been an easy matter for the closer to ignore all !votes from editors with less than ~1000 edits. I recognize many of the participants on the discussion as frequent contributors to RM discussions. Canvassing is a fact of life on Wikipedia and easy to deal with. A two-year moratorium is preposterous, especially if we have been prevent from discussing the matter since the last moratorium ended.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, sorry you feel that way. But I stand by intervention being necessary, including a provisional 2-year moratorium after this latest discussion is concluded. After 13 failed RMs, it is time for stronger measures. That is what something like the DS can task. El_C 20:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
As someone who first came here due to the RM being posted centrally, I see nothing wrong with seeking out the opinion of neutral editors. The persistent outside canvassing going on however has clearly been catastrophic for the expected result of said canvassing, so I hope those elements involved are taking note. Something like this can simply not be rammed through. StonyBrook (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, one can only wonder why it was closed so quickly. Give it a fair chance like any other move request, do not close it because you fear you may lose this time. And to be sure impose years long discussion ban. No kind of "lawyer/bureaucratic" justification, it is just hypocrisy. Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I take exception to that statement, which verges on a personal attack. You are free to appeal my decision (such as it is) in any suitable forum. But it is a discretionary sanctions action, which you may dislike, but carries its own ramifications. El_C 20:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Wow. Now I am in jeopardy because I disagree with this type of winning by silencing of the opposition, very nice, very nice indeed. Yes 20RMs uin next decade - why not, Kyiv/Kiev is evolving thing, so Wiki should hop on board sooner than 2 years too late... I am not saying it must be changed or whjatever, I am for fair RM and fair evaluation. Since when number of supporters/opposers matter. Arguments matter. So why that fear of "canvassing". Oy vey... Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
First of all User:Chrzwzcz this RM was already NOT a "fair chance" because of the violations of Wikipedia Canvassing and the summoning of people outside Wikipedia to participate. There was nothing "fair" about this from the beginning. And your accusations against User:El_C, who was an uninvolved and neutral admin, are completely and totally out of line. He's willing to initiate a new RM before the 2-year moratorium, but only under strict supervision to bypass the obvious cheating that was making this RM totally invalid. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I was only accusing these "blink and you miss it discussions" or "elections won by cancelling the elections" type of thing. It is not important how it all started, it is important if it is valid proposal and fairly evaluated. Period. 22:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrzwzcz (talk • contribs)

I do think it’s very troublesome that as soon as the discussion was leaning towards Kyiv, there was a sudden intervention by a certain person who has quotes of Russian dictator Lenin, who presided over the Ukrainian-Soviet war, to halt renaming the title of this article from the antiquated Russian name to the modern name in English and Ukrainian. In addition, I would suggest that moves to restrict the people who can participate in decision-making and consensus building is a form of gerrymandering, intentional or unintentional. The move to take decision making away from regular editors and viewers and into the hands of an elitist clique is extremely concerning. Tāwhiwhi (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC) — Tāwhiwhi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm not sure a user with two edits, both to this page, has any familiarity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:DEMOCRACY) as represented by the Arbitration Committee or admins acting under its authority. El_C 00:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude and I apologise if any offence was incurred per my previous edit - but I would like to gently remind you that sometimes new users do read the policy pages before jumping in. Tāwhiwhi (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude — I think you've already crossed that particular bridge. El_C 01:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion was never "leaning towards Kyiv", as Wikipedia discussions are not a counting of "votes". Personal attacks against other users are also not a good idea. BilCat (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Just for the record, I have zero preference whether this article should be called Kiev or Kyiv. I absolutely do not care which of these prevails in the end. It is truly unimportant to me. And any aspersions to the contrary are, if anything, indicative of the very same disruptive trend that ought to be curtailed here. El_C 01:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Since this RM was procedurally closed 36 hours after opening because it was "fatally compromised" due to off-Wiki canvassing and other potentially compromising irregularities, some specific directives, tailored exclusively for this subject matter may be in order. If discussions regarding the main title header for Wikipedia's article delineating the capital of Ukraine are considered to be such a "timesink" and so "disruptive" to the proper functioning of Wikipedia that they must be put into lockdown for two years, then this is obviously a special case which calls for special procedures.

The key aspect of the lockdown/moratorium is that the denial of the right to discuss this matter and then to vote upon it is unfair to "true" Wikipedians, the ones who show up every day to contribute. Thus, the "modest proposal" is to make off-wiki canvassing irrelevant by limiting participation to those "true Wikipedians" whom we all know, the usual suspects. While it goes against the grain of Wikipedia's standard practice, it will at least allow a poll regarding the mindset of "true Wikipedians" regarding this longterm controversy.

This RM, most likely with the same or slightly updated text, should be reopened by a "true Wikipedian", seconded by another "true Wikipedian" and should be allowed to run until there are no more comments for three, four or five days.

The specifics of this proposal will obviously needs to be fine-tuned, primarily who qualifies as a "true Wikipedian" eligible to participate and vote in this "exclusive" RM and whether such a vote would count as establishing a WP:CONSENSUS. The centerpiece of the "modest proposal" would be to make participation so difficult that only a small number of "true Wikipedians" would be able to participate and then relieve the stringency as needed.

Thus, start with a five-year minimum participation, a minimum of 30 edits per month for every single month of those five years and, as method of excluding single purpose accounts and "sleeper cells", any edits to articles or talk pages relating to Ukraine, Kyiv/Kiev or Russia should represent no more than 10 percent of each month's total edits. Those admittedly stringent preconditions may be loosened upon consensus.

Finally, I realize full well that it goes against the spirit and principles of Wikipedia to create a special class of "true Wikipedians" or "senior Wikipedians" who would hold special privileges not available to other Wikipedians. However, this "special senior participation" would enable longterm Wikipedians an opportunity to express their views and cast their votes while keeping out special interest groups. The alternative is to lock in place for two years a state of affairs which is unsupported by all current WP:RELIABLE SOURCES, governmental institutions, geographical resources and media outlets. Let us discuss the matter. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I only joined 3 years ago and I have more that 24429 edits. I would fail your "true Wikipedian" test. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't feel it should be so restrictive. Certainly IPs should be out. But you now have an administrator who would fit the bill, yet was instrumental in canvassing that caused a lot of the troubles to begin with. It would be nice to simply let this one be handled by administrator !votes with the rest of us simply supplying the evidence of Kiev/Kyiv usage, but that is worrisome when we see the lengths some will go to canvas. Bottom line is the lead will say it's Kiev, Kyiv or Kyiv, Kiev, regardless. Most people will still pronounce it Key-ev or Key-ef till they croak, no matter how it's spelled here. I have an opinion on how it should be spelled here based on what I read and see in English writing around the world, but in the end I'm still going to write it the way I please no matter what goes on here and no matter what Ukraine or Russia say I should do. When the sun comes up in the morning (or at least I hope it does) I'll plug away at other wikipedia interests no matter the title here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion about the 2-year moratorium, but any extended-confirmed account that wasn't achieved by gaming the edit count should be included in any future !vote. StonyBrook (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Since when are "most people" reliable source for wikipedia? Wikipedie should call it how sources call it regargless of your opinion how "the people" call it. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I said "most people" will pronounce it the same no matter what gets decided on this issue here. Goodness. I did not say most people are any kind of a reliable source as to what is decided here. And Wikipedia absolutely does not always go by sourcing anyway. In the spelling of peoples names we tend to go by how that person spells their name in their native country (using the latin alphabet), not by how it is sourced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
"Good evening and welcome to the Dunny-on-the-Wold by-election. The first thing I must tell you is that the turnout has been very good. As a matter of fact, the voter turned out before breakfast."
I suggest you rest assured that this talk page will not turn into a pumpkin at midnight. Per the above, this sort of speculation is not helpful. There are good reasons why there are things that are not and should not be entirely clear at this point. Kahastok talk 21:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Chrzwzcz, reliable sources are judged by reliable editors and a WP:CONSENSUS is reached among those editors. Your comment is rather naive because reliable sources differ and have different weights in terms of consideration. YOU count X as a reliable source, but I disagree as to its relevance. That's why reliable editors are important. User:Roman Spinner, while your heart is in the right place, your criteria for inclusion might very well exclude everyone. I have been an editor for over a decade, but during some very busy semesters (especially during finals week) I have done little editing or when I was recovering from surgery or traveling internationally, thus I would be excluded. There is simply no way to state "each and every month X edits for ten years". That's an unreasonable demand even though I respect your intention (as well as your honest willingness to be excluded). I'm willing to trust User:El_C and let him determine how to keep only the appropriate editors involved and exclude those who are not. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This "judging by reliable editors" was not quite allowed, it was all quickly banned and moreover maybe banned for 2 years. Not cool. It is completely OK to reevaluate evolving thing more often. Better than just cancel it because "it would surely have same result as before". Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't see how any move discussion on Kiev will not be canvassed, no matter when it's held and under whatever rules. The ultimate decision will probably have to be made by ArbCom, so we might as well appeal to them now. - BilCat (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I think that you're absolutely right User:BilCat. The next RM will just be another stalemate. This issue is so contentious that ARBCOM will be far better and more binding and stable than these continuous and inconclusive discussions. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I do believe "Kyiv" is trending upward, and that it will pass the threshold for most common English spelling sooner if not later. We're just not "there" yet. Until then, ArbCom is probably best to determine when and how the change will take place on Wikipedia. It might also be a good place to address whether or not Common Name is an appropriate guideline in situations such as this where a whole country sees a certain spelling or name as an artifact of past oppression, and Wikipedia's role in that whole issue. - BilCat (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Another article with similar issues on name/spelling in light of past oppression is Bangalore/Begaluru, and there are no doubt others. - BilCat (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I was involved with ARBMAC2 and the stability that the decision brought to Macedonia's name vis à vis Greek trademark demands was invaluable. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, WP:ARBMAC2 is a good precedent for seeking ArbCom's involvement in this issue. - BilCat (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs and TaivoLinguist, due to complaints regarding participation of newly-minted single-purpose accounts, the reasoning behind "a modest proposal" was to start with restrictions so onerous that few Wikipedians would be eligible to participate and then scale those restrictions downward. Of course, in practical terms, depending upon consensus, only one year and 5000 edits should be sufficient for participation or even 6 months and 2500 edits, all other aspects having been satisfied. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

User:El_C would you consider bypassing reopening this RM, even with strict participation guidelines, and moving straight to Arbitration? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I second that request. - BilCat (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Third. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
If anyone expresses intent to bring this before the Committee, then yes, everything gets suspended. As always, I defer to the Committee's guidance or direct intervention. El_C 00:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I believe that User:Impru20 is coordinating with User:Serial Number 54129 to prepare a request for ArbCom. I could have misunderstood. But since few of us have any experience preparing a case for ArbCom, it's probably not going to happen quickly enough to satisfy some here. But I, for one, prefer to present the evidence before a committee of neutral and experienced Wikipedians rather than witnessing another attempt to push through a change based on how many Cossacks can be summoned from the steppes to sign up for Wikipedia and vote for a change. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I was unaware of that. El_C 03:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
It would be good if there was an update which confirms this. El_C 10:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
El C: Yup. I updated on it yesterday already, but it got lost among all the chatting. I emailed the evidence I had to Serial Number 54129 so he could present it to Arbcom; now we'll have to wait for new developments on the issue. Impru20talk 11:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Impru20. It is now in the hands of the Committee. I've updated the log and will update the RM summary as well with my next edit. El_C 11:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Dear TaivoLinguist, I find your comment highly offensive. 'Cossacks from the steppes' is a racist rhetoric. 94.153.3.174 (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Since "Cossack" is not a racial term, but a cultural term, then it cannot, by definition, be "racist rhetoric". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, if someone points out the insensitivity of your comment associating an identifiable group with misdeeds, I suggest a polite apology instead of a critique of their semantics. WP:CIVIL. —Michael Z. 07:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Considering the simple and verifiable fact that the Ukrainian government, the Ukrainian public, and Ukrainian business advertising, especially after 2014 and the Russian invasion, has consistently and overtly used the image of summoning the Cossacks to battle as a positive recruiting tool for the Ukrainian army and the defense of the homeland, I find this Ukrainian IP's "outrage" to be insincere. It is the simple equivalent of "calling in the cavalry" to an American. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. We don’t need verifiable sources to do this. Not everybody sees everything based on the same background that you do. —Michael Z. 12:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Michael, maybe so, but WP:V and WP:RS are the cornerstones of the project's aims. TaivoLinguist, please don't discuss the geolocation of IPs for a reason which isn't pertinent to Wikipedia. That is inappropriate. El_C 12:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

COMMONNAME source analysis

To assist for the next requested move, please contribute to Talk:Kiev/sources. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Bravo! This is what I called for several times and it was declined because of... some kind of reasons, I don't remember, something preposterous probably. Thanks. Chrzwzcz (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh yes, seems very neutral. Users loading the Kyiv section full of sources wherever "Kyiv" is slightly mentioned, then removing/editing sources from the Kiev section so that it's made clear that these also conveniently support the cause for Kyiv. At this time, it seems obvious this issue should be left to a neutral, third party to handle. I'd support Arbcom taking a decision on the renaming issue as suggested above. Impru20talk 17:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to add to the list. Neither Arbcom nor any other third party is going to decide the title of this article; it'll be decided by consensus. The more evidence of COMMONNAME available to editors, the better. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The issue is that the list is basically a copy-paste of what was already said in support of "Kyiv" in the closed RM above, and in itself a red herring to keep the focus away from the true deciding factor here, which as per WP:MPN is the change in the local form of the name having become predominant in common global usage. None of these sources does back up that "Kyiv" has become the dominant form in common global usage; if anything, they point to a trend hinting that such change may happen in the future, not that it has happened just yet, so I don't what what the usefulness of this "evidence" is. I could myself pile-on hundreds or even thousands of sources using either "Kiev" or "Kyiv", which I could find just by conducting the appropiate searches in Google, yet those by themselves would be of little help or even be counterproductive because of them turning into an unreadable text wall. On the other hand, the list is being turned into a pro-Kyiv propaganda item by some of the same people who crafted the canvassing-ridden RM above. Unless you suggest I should jump in and risk edit warring over it, I'd rather be prudent and wait for the issue getting addressed and resolved the proper way. In this case, the above call that we should bring this for resolution by a third-party authority and avoid us the drama of subsequent RMs (which everyone seemingly accept will be afflicted by the same sort of canvassing again) seems like a wise advice. Impru20talk 18:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Impru20, where did you get the idea that “common global usage” should determine the title of an article about a place. The guidelines it is actually “prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources.” I don’t know how you expect us to determine this while avoiding finding out what it says in, say, a bunch of English-language sources.
Secondly, I think we can all assume that formerly nearly every English-language source used Kiev. It seems to me that it would help paint the picture by making note of the ones that have changed their practice. If you think that it’s unfair not to list the ones that have actively clung to or reaffirmed the use of Kiev in recent years, anyone may contribute to the list, so fill your boots!
Ironically, compiling the list of organizations and references that have actively clung to or reaffirmed the use of Kiev would be quite easy, since it is quite small. I believe you could not compile a list of thousands of sources. But start with Wikipedia.
And please assume good faith while you comment about editors who are doing a lot of work trying to improve Wikipedia. This discussion has more than enough denigrating language and accusatory innuendo like “pile-on” and “pro-Kyiv propaganda” already. —Michael Z. 2020-07-03 19:17 z
I agree that toning down the battleground rhetoric would be helpful.
It's interesting you cite to WP:MPN where it talks about the change in local form "having become predominant in common global usage". The very next sentence says, That can be assessed by reviewing up-to-date references to the place in a modern context in reliable, authoritative sources such as news media, other encyclopedias, atlases and academic publications as well as the official publications of major English-speaking countries, for example the CIA World Factbook. Hence why I started Talk:Kiev/sources. You're welcome to add up-to-date references from reliable, authoritative sources such as those listed. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but I won't be contributing to unofficially re-opening the RM by virtue of moving the discussion from here onto issues deriving from Talk:Kiev/sources. I have made my position on this clear enough below. Impru20talk 19:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
That's fine if you don't want to contribute to the gathering of sources, but it would be nice if you could stop insinuating that I and other editors have improper motives or are otherwise doing something wrong by gathering sources, as you did below. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
it would be nice if you could stop insinuating that I and other editors have improper motives or are otherwise doing something wrong by gathering sources, as you did below Excuse me, but what I said below is that it'd indeed be wrong if such action of "gathering sources" implies an unofficial re-opening of a discussion which is currently closed and with a moratorium in force. This was not an insinuation: I made it crystal clear. Do not suggest yourself that I'm "insinuating" anything else. Whenever I've questioned the actions of any single user I think it's clear who I am referring to and that I won't be saying anything without proof of it. I don't remember having questioned your actions in particular; sorry if you considered it so, but please, do not put in my mouth words that I haven't said. Impru20talk 20:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Impru20, what moratorium is in force? The way I read the closing of the move request above, including the update, El_C intends to enact a moratorium on page moves after the upcoming re-run or replacement of this move request. If you think they intend to prevent us from collecting sources of information about the subject of this article, please get some clarification. —Michael Z. 2020-07-03 21:36 z
That is correct. Provisionally. Anyway, Talk:Kiev/sources remains at your disposal. El_C 21:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I may have misunderstood it, but wasn't it that a 2-year moratorium, even if provisional and pending any future Arbcom development, was already in force?
If you think they intend to prevent us from collecting sources of information about the subject of this article, please get some clarification Get some clarification yourself before rewritting my own statements, I have never claimed you should be prevented from collecting sources of any kind. Btw, you don't have to respond to every comment I make in this discussion. This is not the RM. Impru20talk 22:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Impru20, I suspect the only current purpose of that list of sources is to keep the RM alive in some form. I created that list, so that was a comment about me. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Levivich I have never said that the list's current purpose derives from its creation nor that it has come by your hand. You will have truly created the list in good faith hoping for it to turn into a helpful tool for any future RM. It's sadly degradating into something else. Impru20talk 20:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The list contains mainly sources which already switched. The unlisted rest (probably) hasn't switch yet, just by default. If you want to point out high profile (type of) source which still uses Kiev, it is open for edit. 22:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. The list is currently a merely reformatted re-post of what was already shown in the RM above, and it has now been taken over by the RM's OP who, incidentally, also happens to unilaterally cancel/re-edit the sources not supporting their cause to make them appear as supportive of their cause as well. Since their own RM was suspended (because of issues also related to their own behaviour) and all discussion on the issue is currently halted, it's very unlikely anyone but those having strong feelings about this will actually care to go to the list and edit it, lest it become another heated/dramatic discussion over the issue. Impru20talk 14:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
And? Good to have it together, and it is bigger and bigger with more and more impressive achievements. Facebook is the latest addition which possibly started all this (facebook generation :)) Who can say RM would end like the last time? The list contains more and more very important sources and it propably reached the threshold. Or who are you missing? Who do you need to be impressed? How come it would end the same when the conditions change? IMHO Kyiv already wins on number of the most important media on board. Are we waiting for number of google search results without any filtering? "Common name in the last year" is OK with me, it is able to react to the changes, not like unfiltered google search. Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is very impressive as a massive (and biased) red herring consisting in throwing a bunch of sources mentioning "Kyiv", then distorting any ones which dare to mention "Kiev". Wikipedia is not a battleground, so I'll not be commenting what "wins" here because this is not a matter of winning anything, despite what some people are very obviously intending to do. Impru20talk 15:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The policy cited by Impru20 asks us to “engage in polite discussion” and “assume good faith.” —Michael Z. 2020-07-04 18:47 z
I agree that there has been a strong lack of politeness in this discussion. However, you were remarkably absent when several users literally threw themselves at insulting the uninvolved admin who closed the RM, so I don't how why you keep mentioning me at every turn. On the other hand, I'm not sure what do you mean with AGF: it's been already stated that it's not an excuse to blind yourself when there's evidence of a reprehensible behaviour going on. Finally, for the second (or third) time: you don't need to respond to every one of my comments, particularly in parts of the discussion where you are not even participating or being mentioned. Note that intentionally singling out one person for purposes other than to build an encyclopedia, even if mildy, is strongly discouraged. Impru20talk 19:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Re you don't need to respond to every one of my comments when I Ctrl+F for the following strings:
  • "Levivich [dubious": 15 hits
  • "Michael Z. ": 20
  • "TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk)": 27
  • " El_C " (with the spaces): 32 (the closer)
  • " Impru20talk " (with the spaces): 38
Just saying. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Curious enough, in this section alone I get 12 hits for you compared to 11 for me, 5 for Michael and 3 for El_C & Taivo. So what? I don't get the purpose of this reply from you now. Impru20talk 19:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Well if you want to deny the fact more and more very important sources already started using it, in that case sure, RM would end with the same result. The list shows mainly the Kyiv sources, because those changed their view. I asked who's missing on the list to show who still resist (like Wikipedia) - I got "herrings" and "distorting". It is just stalling, question is not "if" but "when". Too much energy put into stalling. Wikipedia can't lead the way, but IMHO now is falling behind. And those silly ideas to keep it that way for next two years? Whyy?! Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Meh. Instead the whole idea that common name must take precedence over official name must be challeged. Using incorrect or illiterate terms just because lay people use them in daily life is stupid. Mikus (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The place to make that challenge is at WT:AT, but it's complicated. Using the "official" name is not always best. Most would prefer "North Korea" over "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"; "aspirin" over "acetylsalicylic acid"; "FIFA" over "Fédération Internationale de Football Association". Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Not me. In all three cases I prefer the official name as the main title. Common name can still be used for redirects. Thanks for pointing in the right direction to challege the policy. So, do I just start a section and state my case? At the top of the page, or the bottom, or does not matter? Mikus (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Bottom of the page, and I strongly suggest going through the archives and reading prior discussions on the matter. (I don't know what discussions are in the archives, or how long ago the last discussion was, but I'm sure it's been discussed more than once.) You'll want to address whatever the reasons were in the last discussion for having it be the way it is now. I have no idea what level of support you'll find, but I'm kind of curious to find out. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you want to challenge the Common Name policy, go to the naming policy pages and challenge it there. I will probably support such an effort. But until the policies are changed, I'm going to support them in renaming discussions, as will a lot of others. - BilCat (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@BilCat: I told him the exact same in the RM above when it was still open, but I see this person, rather than truly challenging Wikipedia's guidelines, is only coming here to throw insults at them lol Impru20talk 19:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
And I said something similar at his ill-fated RM at Requested move 6 April 2020 almost 3 months ago. I do belive more emphasis snould be given to official names, especially in genuinely ambiguous situations such as Cassette tape, or in culturally sensitive situations such as with Kiev and Bangalore. But as a policy, it has to be changed at the policy level. - BilCat (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
And people were worried that they'd have to wait two years! The new RM has started, officially or not. The new moratorium lasted barely 12 hours.

(Which, for anyone interested, is precisely why we this sort of exercise was disallowed in the previous moratorium.) Kahastok talk 19:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Kahastok El_C's note and its update imply there is no moratorium until after the resolution of the suspended move request, and I suspect when it comes it will be a moratorium on page moves, not a discussion ban. —Michael Z. 2020-07-03 21:36 z
If there's no moratorium, why not just start a new RM and be done with it?
There is no substantive difference between a "moratorium on page moves" and a "discussion ban". Because if discussion on the article name isn't aiming to change the article name then there is no reason for it to be here. Per WP:NOTFORUM, the aim of talk pages is to improve the article, not for editors to engage in loud, interminable and pointless argument in a way that actively prevents article improvement. Kahastok talk 21:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Why, Kahastok? Because the closing note stated that issue is going to ArbCom and there will be a new RM soon. And because they have since clarified further. By the way, if you see behaviour against the guidelines, please helpfully, politely, address the editors or deal with it according to our policies. Complaining out loud is not a path to article improvement either. —Michael Z. 2020-07-03 23:11 z
You'll be pleased to know that when there were cases where editors were using this page as a forum for discussing the article name during the moratorium we had, I was perfectly happy to close those discussions as according to the consensus.
And incidentally, since you ask, please could you format the timestamp in your signature in accordance with WP:SIGPROB? Custom formats play havoc with the bots and are thus not allowed. Thanks. Kahastok talk 16:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree. Indeed, I suspect the only current purpose of that list of sources is to keep the RM alive in some form (specially when considering that (1) it's basically a copy-paste of the sources already posted in the closed RM; (2) that calling for people to keep adding sources to it will eventually lead to disputes over said sources and, eventually, to disputes over the same RM issues all over again; and (3) that it has been taken over by the RM's OP lmao). We should refrain from entering into the frame unless strictly needed. Nonetheless, I'd have wished that the people using this "assume good faith" argument now had raised it on those who canvassed the whole RM discussion, spoke about some pro-Russian Wikipedia conspiracy against Ukrainians or literally insulted the uninvolved admin who closed the RM discussion. This could have helped back then, but guess it's only useful when you complain about the behaviours in the "wrong" side of the discussion. Impru20talk 19:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Levivich, if ArbCom takes up this issue and makes a decision it will most certainly "be decided". ArbCom is the final authority and your insistence that "consensus will prevail" is false. Indeed, "Consensus" is not a vote despite your attempts to make it so. But ArbCom will prevail if they take up this issue as we are asking. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

TaivoLinguist, Arbcom will not decide the title of this article. They don't have the authority to make that kind of content decision. It's right in WP:ARBPOL. They can decide the terms of the RFC, such as they have done many times before, but they can't decide the outcome. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, also, what do you mean my attempts to make it a vote? Please strike that. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Levivich They most certainly can make such decisions enforceable. Check out WP:MOSMAC2. That was an ArbCom decision and was definitive and did not require WP:CONSENSUS. I was involved in WP:ARBMAC2 and saw the process close up. It works and it's definitive. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The Committee can do what they dare to do. El_C 19:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:ARBPOL: The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated. The Arbitration Committee is not going to decide if this article is titled "Kiev" or "Kyiv". Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Naming is not content, it is presentation and style.--Khajidha (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
What is this, the twilight zone? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 20:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
However ArbCom comes to its decisions (and it's up to the ArbCom members themselves how they work), their decisions are final. WP:MOSMAC, the direct result of WP:ARBMAC2, stood for about a decade until Greece and Macedonia settled their differences. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I doubt the Committee will pick a side. But they may mandate a resolution that encompasses anything they really see fit otherwise. El_C 21:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
There was also a case on Ireland with similar procedure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Clarification

According to the sequence of events (that has been hopelessly mangled in the discussion) here is the sequence of upcoming events as I understand User:El_C has stated. He is the one in charge here right now.

  • The issue will be submitted to ArbCom very soon (two of our editors are preparing the submission). This is a very similar situation to issues with the naming of North Macedonia prior to 2019 and the naming of articles related to Ireland/Republic of Ireland. In both of these situations there were disagreements that were unresolvable using normal procedures and much bad blood. The ArbCom process stabilized the issue. (With regard to the "official name" position that has been taken by some, "Republic of Ireland" is the official name of no country in the world. The official name of the country is simply "Ireland". But the article is at "Republic of Ireland" to avoid ambiguity with the article on the island as a whole, which is at "Ireland". Using the official name in all cases is not as simple as you might think.)
  • The previous RM is dead because of corruption.
  • There is a two-year moratorium on move requests in place either now or after the ArbCom decision. The original moratorium was to begin after a NEW RM, but since ArbCom will happen instead of a new RM, the moratorium is either a moot issue or will begin either now or after ArbCom. The last moratorium was a moratorium on both RMs and on name discussions. Everyone was simply sick and tired of the constant issue that meant nothing constructive was being done to improve the article. I will assume that the two-year moratorium will have the same restriction. (Obviously, if ArbCom decides to move the article to "Kyiv" or if a future RM as a result of ArbCom's decision moves it, then the issue of a moratorium is moot.)
  • There will not be another RM because it is going to ArbCom.
  • ArbCom will decide what ArbCom decides and we will move on from there.

--TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I could see the Committee mandating a reopening of the RM I have suspended or starting a new RM from scratch, under some conditions, of course. El_C 03:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Neat about Ireland.
Not all of us assume that El_C’s moratorium “will have the same restriction,” which felt like a draconian régime of suppression of discussion enforced by a few editors and based on no clear consensus. I am glad to see disinterested parties intervene here. Let’s wait for ArbCom’s decision instead of overly “clarifying” the undetermined future. —Michael Z. 2020-07-04 13:54 z

FTR, I would point out that we are not just discussing 13 RMs in the lifetime of the page. The last moratorium came in directly after the October 2019 RM. At that time I worked out that that RM (26 October 2019) was the eleventh separate discussion on the article name started since the closure of the previous RM just over three months beforehand (16 July 2019). Many of those discussions lasted several days, and while most were started by new editors they tended to end up with the same editors making the same arguments over and over again.

The whole point behind the moratorium was that this continuous discussion of the article name had long since driven out all useful discussion, and was thus disrupting the article. There is no doubt that allowing such discussion to continue through any future moratorium would be equally disruptive. Kahastok talk 16:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Relitigating the RM. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Or maybe the moratorium was disrupting the article by preserving a title that has become an indefensible fossil. I appreciate your desire for quiet on this talk page, Kahastok, but I think you may have lost track of the need for us to respond to changing English usage in the rest of the world. I’m looking forward to the ArbCom process. —Michael Z. 2020-07-04 18:41 z
The problem User:Mzajac is that English usage was not changing as fast as you and the other crusaders wanted so you wanted Wikipedia to force change rather than describe change. The moratorium actually allowed real changes to the article to be discussed and made without being drowned in the torrent of nationalistic fervor and trivial, repetitive data that the name change advocates have always brought with them and were bringing on a weekly, sometimes even daily basis. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that you defenders of status quo do not want to see the changes. You just talk and talk about nationalistic views and crusaders and moratorium and disliking the "new name". Who cares what YOU think about the " naew name"? Who cares if you think it is pushed and activistic? Sources change, Wikipedia follows, simple as that. No rude comments about people and names, no real argument value in such comments. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that you defenders of status quo do not want to see the changes. While it may appear that way to you, it isn't for me or most of the other editors either. I've always personally supported a change to "Kyiv", but under Wikipedia's naming conventions, it is not the current common name, and my personal opinion does NOT matter in these discussions. It's use is growing, and soon it will pass "Kiev", but no one knows how soon. Now that most English language publication style guides support using "Kyiv", it's usage should increase. But until the threshold is actually passed, I'll oppose changing the name in these discussions. And I think my view on this pretty much speaks for all the other Oppose editors that have commented here, other than my own personal expressed opinion. - BilCat (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
As I read the adjectives they put in association with Kyiv, I do not share your optimism. "Now that most English language publication style guides support using "Kyiv"" - exactly, now it is crazy to wait 2 more years. When those styleguides changed, it does prove the shift (be it future applications of those styleguides). Why wait 2 years, we can give it standard 6 months - now, when you are certain it will happen, not "if". Well, it did happen (styleguides), we will just see it in actionChrzwzcz (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
User:BilCat is absolutely right. If you actually opened your eyes and read my comments instead of just my tag line before reacting, you would see that I have written here on more than one occasion that the time may come when Kyiv becomes more common in English usage than Kiev, but until that time comes Wikipedia rules preclude moving the article. If you actually paid attention you would even notice that I have personally referred to the city as Kyiv (unless referring specifically to the English placename Kiev) since 2007 (when I moved there and taught for a year in one of the universities). But Wikipedia is not the place to tell English speakers what to do, it is the place to reflect what the majority of English speakers actually do. I use Kyiv, but most reliable sources and common usage still has Kiev. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Chrzwzcz, style guides are just preferences until they are put into practice. If they are put into practice, then it is usage. There's no evidence that preference has turned into general practice. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Exactly, they are not "Style Policies" , else the editors of said publications would enforce them, and "Kiev" would appear nowhere in those publications at all, which has not happened. - BilCat (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps, as El C says, we shouldn't relitigate the RM and save the arguments for the appropriate time. In the meantime, I can only see this constantly distracting conversation, without any benefit. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree and was about to post the very same sentiment--this is not the time or place to conduct an RM. We're going to ArmCom (hopefully sooner rather than later) and that's where such discussions, even about whether or not to have a moratorium on discussion will be had and the matter decided. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Again, (many) English sources kinda already did - they wrote it in their styleguides. So I guess they want to follow their styleguides and use only Kyiv. Yeah yeah, we can wait until we see it in action, but it is expected to have immediate/quick practical effect, do we really have to wait 2 whole years? Most reliable sources - well it is question for fair RM to evaluate. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
No, it is for ArbCom to decide. And they will decide if an RM can be fair or not. - BilCat (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
It would be nice if a fair RM could actually be conducted on this issue, User:Chrzwzcz, but we saw with this one that it was corrupt from the very beginning. ArbCom might be able to monitor a fair RM. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeking confirmation of the Arbitration Committee having been made aware of this dispute

Can we please get an update from someone about having contacted the Arbitration Committee regarding this matter? You don't need to divulge anything, just confirm that this communication with the Committee has began. El_C 03:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129 has all the information and evidence of canvassing and had agreed to present it if I was reading their posts correctly. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, we'll see what he says. But if no one has contacted (or will in the near future) the Committee, this falls back in my hands, sort to speak. El_C 08:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Confirming that we received an e-mail today. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
So this was in someone’s drafts mailbox for a week and a half? Or somebody was busy working on a long email? Who? Is the request about resolving the requested move, or only the canvassing issues? Not complaining, but a lot of editors are waiting patiently, and, frankly, I have no clue what is going on, so some info would be appreciated. Thanks. —Michael Z. 05:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, we've received a request for a private case (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Forms of proceeding). For obvious reasons, we're not going to talk about any details. And if we do accept such a case, it will narrowly address only matters unsuitable for public discussion. So if there are broader issues you want us to look at, we need an on-wiki case request. – Joe (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
So that sounds to me like, maybe, an individual disciplinary case. Does that pending case prevent El_C from proceeding with resolution of the interrupted move request on this page? Thanks, Joe Roe. —Michael Z. 19:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually, what it sounds like is that a formal, public Arbitration Request needs to be made. Resuming the former polluted and corrupted request is not an option. It was contaminated from the beginning. At the very least, a new RM with very tight controls over who participates. User:El_C? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
For my part, I'm ready to go ahead with a re-opening, provided some nominal clerking is undertaken. I don't know what is before the Committee (privately), but I cautiously predict that it should not be a hindrance toward accomplishing this. As for a full case request (public), I'm not sure what it would entail or what the Committee would be expected to do at this time about this incident. El_C 20:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The previous RM was so corrupted by the WP:CANVASSing that I would oppose a reopening. We can start over without the canvassing, but opening a jar of mayonnaise that has gone bad just leads to more toxic results. But I would disallow any anon IPs and any obviously single purpose accounts (particularly those that have zero editing history prior to coming to this page). I would prefer that involved editors at least have some editing history in the area of Ukraine, but that's harder to justify and experienced editors (not the SPAs and anon IPs above) can be assumed to be familiar with basic Wikipedia policies. Without these two basic safeguards (no anon IPs and no brand-new editors [SPAs]) then we leave the door wide open for further (hidden) canvassing and respondents to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' calls for patriots to flood social media with requests for "Kyiv" (it's documented). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
All new or inactive accounts should be tagged accordingly by whomever is doing that clerking. No, I don't see why so many editors in good standing should be forced to repeat themselves. I am opposed to a new request. I'm more inclined to just relist the current one. Of course, if the Committee itself has any preference on the matter, as always, I defer to their guidance. Also of course, if multiple editors in good standing prefer a new request over a relist, a new request would be fine, also. But my instinct at this time is to relist. El_C 01:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
So it sounds like we just wait for the Arb Committee to decide what it's going to decide about the "private matter" and then proceed from there at that time. Fair enough. Having been involved in ArbCom matters before, I know that they work on their own time schedule. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
If the Committee wishes to wait until their private proceeding is concluded before we relist the RM, then that's what we'll do — but is that really what they prefer? I'm not getting that impression. El_C 03:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Again, I strongly urge you to drop that former RM because it was poisoned from the beginning. If those editors in the corrupted RM weren't just here as fly-by-night canvassed "votes" they will come to restate their preferences again. I'm here for every RM. Other editors who care will show up for a new RM. But it sounds like you are going to wait for guidance from the Arb Com before proceeding either way. That's the best route IMHO. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear Taivo won't be bringing this up again. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 03:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, repetition is not helpful. And of course I will wait for Committee members to guide me further. I'm in no rush to act, still. El_C 04:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

So, El_C are you waiting for the clerking? I don’t know what that means, so if you’ll explain what you expect, maybe I and some others can get started on it, since you were ready to reopen the move nearly two weeks ago. Thanks. —Michael Z. 14:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Clerking is easy and can be done in minutes. I'm surprised no one has done it yet. I gave permission to edit the archived (suspended) discussion for anyone to do so at any time. But, no, it has nothing to do with that. I'm awaiting further notice from the Arbitration Committee about how to proceed. El_C 19:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Our understanding was that the previous RM was suspended pending the result of the ArbCom action and then you would proceed to follow the instructions of the ArbCom decision--either cancelling the previous RM and starting a new one or reopening the old one. But for now we're just waiting. That's actually precisely what you wrote when you closed the RM: "These proceedings are suspended pending their [ArbCom's] decision" --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
El_C, I am willing to start clerking by tagging all new or inactive accounts in the RM discussion above. I don’t know what constitutes “new” or “inactive,” or what exactly “tagging accounts” is, but I will look for relevant guidelines and improvise if I have to.
I’m confused, though, whether you’re “ready to reopen” or waiting for ArbCom on “a private matter” or something. There’s a lot of alluding to some non-transparent, non-consensus process by I don’t know who, and some in-joke about “beans” which I don’t get. I’d like to be informed what is going on, in plain English. Or should I just ignore all these games and whispers and propose the move again, according to Wikipedia’s plain and open guidelines, and seek consensus? Thanks.
TaivoLinguist, speak for yourself, because we do not all share your understanding. —Michael Z. 03:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Mzajac, if there were not a general understanding that everything was on pause based on User:El_C's statements, then there would have been a general and constant clamoring on this page to restart instead of nearly total silence for the last two weeks. My apologies if you don't want to be included in that understanding. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Michael, the link is WP:BEANS. The tag is {{spa}}. El_C 12:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, I read Beans but I’m too slow to understand what it has to do with this. I wish someone would explain in plain language, instead of nudges and winks. —Michael Z. 14:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Not be circular, but it would be contrary to BEANS to answer that. El_C 14:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Mzajac, in the dark of night I misunderstood what you meant by "clerking". I was understanding "opening the discussion back up", but based on User:El_C's response you don't seem to have meant that. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
You did not misunderstand: Or should I just ignore all these games and whispers and propose the move again, according to Wikipedia’s plain and open guidelines, and seek consensus? No, Michael, you should definitely not do that. El_C 12:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
El C, on a slightly tangential note, apparently there is past precedent for using discretionary sanctions to regulate how a discussion is conducted (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms, I believe that format/rules was taken under DS, not a specific case remedy, per the Rules section there). Assuming ArbCom takes no interest in this matter, perhaps there's that option if you decide to reopen the RM. A decent set of rules might lead to a more productive discussion on this perennial, controversial question. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
That feels like a bit of a rule creep, ProcrastinatingReader. I'm taking discretionary action and noting it in the log —like with Talk:Ayurveda#RFC:_pseudoscience_in_the_opening_sentence, for example— subject to Committee review. That suffices, in my mind. Anyway, I got a sense (from this) that Barkeep49 is going to take the lead now, which I welcome with enthusiasm. El_C 17:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I have no desire to take responsibility for this. I have a willingness to help as part of a team effort. I also have a belief that the conversation should happen. So far I have not been able to reconcile these three things. If the original discussion had been allowed to proceed I would have been active in monitoring. When El C closed it down he took on the responsibility for this. I don't know how to restart the discussion without also taking responsibility for it. So while I have given thought to how we might want to resume this conversation I have been shy about actually making it happen because I don't think this is a topic well served by one person leading/taking responsibility. Also not helping is that my onwiki time has been very limited (today's the first day in a while where I've really been able to be on). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'm open to suggestions on how to immediately proceed. If I need to be the one to unsuspend the discussion, so be it.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 17:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Upon further thought, I just went ahead and unsuspended the discussion. Will note on the log. Thanks for everyone's patience. El_C 17:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps; I just wanted to float the idea. imo a structured discussion that allows people to reach a consensus in either direction, even if it involves invoking DS to facilitate civil & productive discourse, seems better imo than a undecipherable mess (though I suppose you could say it's unnecessary, after all even the Fox News RfC went without a hitch, mostly), though it'd probably be a great help for the unfortunate fellow who ends up having to close the RM. I see the discussion is unsuspended now, let's see how this goes (or, rather, how long it lasts...).
Btw, what are the guidelines on advertising a RM like this? Noting, of course, that it's not a typical RM and uninvolved opinions based on policy would probably be more helpful than those with passion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The re-opened RM may be advertised on relevant Wikiprojects. El_C 18:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I should clarify, for the record, that the arbitration committee has at no time (at least, not to my knowledge) been asked to involve themselves in this content/naming dispute. Rather, they were asked to look at a very narrow set of behavioral circumstances involving allegations of one party's off-wiki canvassing. ——Serial 17:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering why I'm not going to participate this time, the new university semester starts on Monday and all our courses have been converted to on-line delivery. Making that transition and fixing the inevitable problems with new web courses will take most of my time. I simply don't have any more time to devote to extended discussion on Wikipedia. The Cossacks will probably win by default. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: With this talk page being over 190 kilobytes long and only consisting of a move discussion, this must be one of Wikipedia's most heated move discussions ever. JIP | Talk 23:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 13th the charm? El_C 06:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    Assuming this (or a future) RM succeeds, the order will just swap to perennial Kyiv -> Kiev, I suppose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    That didn't happen with other similar moves, like Yogurt and Hillary Clinton. Once they were moved to the "correct" title, they stabilized (and the stability is the proof that the title is "correct"). My theory is that whenever any content is "wrong", even if there is no consensus on wiki to change it, efforts to change it will never stop (because ultimately those efforts come from readers, not the regular editors who !voted in a discussion, and readers vastly outnumber regular editors). Once the "wrong" content is made "right", efforts to change it stop. Stability is how we know when we've got it right. I predict this will stabilize when it's "Kyiv", and it will never stabilize before then. Lev!vich 16:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I share your conclusion but not your reasoning. A lot of the RMs and proposals to change have been openly politically motivated. Specifically, it has mostly been pro-Ukrainian partisans pushing a pro-Ukrainian POV. I saw the Twitter threads on this RM when it first started and I can assure you that the same applies here, at least with respect to the original proposal. That's not to say that there isn't a case to be made on the merits of policy, but it is not policy that has driven the proposals to change.
OTOH, historically speaking, the opposition to change has largely come from linguists and non-Ukrainian English speakers. Despite the characterisation we see drawn by some Ukrainian partisans, this has not generally been a Ukraine vs. Russia dispute on Wikipedia.
And the reasons this is unlikely to come back if there is a move are first, because we have a two-year moratorium coming when the RM closes (either way), and second, because this point raises far more passion among Ukrainian partisans than it does with anyone else. Kahastok talk 17:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that pretty much all editing of Wikipedia is openly politically motivated, all editors are partisans of one kind or another, and everyone is here to right great wrongs. I think we kid ourselves when we think that people who feel strongly that it should be "Kyiv" are somehow different than people who feel strongly that it should be "Kiev". As if one side was coming from a place of self interest and the other side was coming from a place of neutral purity. It's not true; we're all self-interested animals, we all have passions, and we all have feelings and opinions that are formed by our life experiences. I see people talking off-wiki about how the article should be "Kyiv", but I don't think those people are pushing a pro-Ukranian POV, or at least no more so than the people who oppose this RM are pushing an anti-Ukranian POV -- I just think those aren't accurate ways to frame the issue, and I think that kind of framing lends us towards unhelpful battleground mentalities. Lev!vich 17:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
+1, Levivich. But I’ll go further. It’s pro-Wikipedia to have the article title reflect prevailing usage in reliable sources. I only see some editors resisting the change trying to recast it as “pro-Ukrainian” and “political,” to disparagingly label some other editors as Ukrainians, to prevent requested moves and stifle discussion, and citing irrelevant and inaccurate Google search results, because arguments based on the guidelines and facts don’t support their desired outcome. —Michael Z. 18:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
So you don't recognise a difference between the argument It should be Kiev because that is the natural conclusion from WP:AT, and the argument it should be Kyiv because Wikipedia should endorse the position of the Ukrainians against the Russians? At times - including in the Twitter threads at the beginning of this RM - it really has been that blatant.
Bear in mind that in most previous RMs the position with respect to WP:AT and WP:COMMONNAME was entirely obvious in a way that it isn't today. Until the last year or so, just about every English-language source based outside Ukraine used Kiev. And there were still just as many people coming along trying to get us to change the name. Kahastok talk 19:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the first sentence is true. It is definitely possible to edit without any sort of visible political motivation. There's plenty of editors whose political views would be difficult to ascertain from their contributions, beyond a complete guess. There's maybe some value in the statement that we have some inherent bias based on our experiences, but it's still possible to be aware of that bias, even if you don't know how exactly to adjust for it awareness is usually enough for most discussions. A certain amount of politically motivated editors is actually necessary, but once you go over a certain threshold consensus stops working properly and the wiki loses value. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
At over 210 kilobytes, this move discussion is already over one and a half times as long as the entire article it's about. JIP | Talk 20:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The bottom line is that prior to 2020 common usage in reliable English sources was Kiev and support for Kyev was probably often politically motivated. But this year common usage has clearly shifted, and WP needs to reflect that. That’s what we do. And once it’s moved nobody will even bother to try to move it back to Kiev. There will be no grounds to do so. —В²C ☎ 14:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Provisional move moratorium

Latest comment: 4 years ago67 comments19 people in discussion
Final duration for the moratorium on launching new WP:RMs is one year. In this case, this prohibition is a discretionary sanction. It has been noted in the log. El_C 16:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm interested in participants' views before the RM discussion is closed. Should we go with an upper ceiling moratorium of 2 years, or a lower ceiling moratorium of one year? El_C 23:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

One year at the longest. Even some of the oppose votes acknowledge that the trend is towards increasing common usage of Kyiv, but don't support shifting from Kiev just quite yet. A two-year moratorium is too inflexible for what's clearly an accelerating change in usage. Carter (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I think move moratoriums should be used very sparingly, and only in response to active disruption. – bradv🍁 00:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
One year at absolute most; more realistically six to eight months if we do it. Garuda28 (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
This article has been subject to incessant move requests for years now with barely one or two months between them. Some of those requests were literally based on a single new style guide requiring "Kyiv" or the discovery of an single on-line atlas using "Kyiv". The last moratorium was for six months and literally hours before it expired the anon IP was marshaling their forces for this current one, which was filed within minutes of the six-month moratorium expiring. If this article doesn't meet the criteria for "active disruption" then none do. One year at a minimum if the move request fails. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • One year seems fine. The rolling move requests, always with the same result, are unhelpful. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The top of the page lists 3x RMs in 2007; 2x in 2008; 1x each in 2009, 2012, 2013, 2017, and 2018; 2x in 2019; and so far this one in 2020. Two RMs in one year is not all that disruptive and that's only happened once in the last ten years, whereas there were gaps between RMs of 4 years and 3 years in the same time period. There haven't been "too many" RMs and I don't see cause for a move moratorium. Lev!vich 01:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Levivich you haven't been around this page for years like I have. That list at the top of the page is only partial. It lists RMs that were allowed to proceed. There are at least five times as many that were posted and then immediately deleted because they immediately followed a closed one. Then there are the hundreds of cases of editors posting "We have to change this" threads without trying to initiate formal RMs. It has been a nearly constant chain for years now. Those of us who have been active on this page know its history. I believe that this is your first time at the rodeo so of course you don't know what's been happening. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Levivich I just realized why you posted something that uninformed. You don't seem to know the existence of Talk:Kiev/naming where move discussions get warehoused to remove the clutter on this page. There are 15 archives on that page dating from 2003 to 2020 with move requests at increasing frequency as the years rolled on. That's where you need to be doing your research. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Having !voted oppose, I myself have been one of those acknowledging several times that there is a trend hinting at a possible "Kyiv" common usage in the future (not yet tho). While a moratorium is fine to prevent disruption, it should obviously not hinder progress in the event that such a situation takes place. That would be a reason for a short moratorium. Sadly, the persistent use of RMs on this page for purely disruptive purposes is just so high, which would advice a longer moratorium. Also, some useful sources such as Google Trends and Ngram typically require a longer timespan for stable changes in usage to be detected. 6 months would be too few, 2 years too much. One year seems about fine. Impru20talk 09:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Changing my stance as a result of the chaotic discussion ensuing below. It's obvious that some users won't stop turning this into a full battleground not even when politely requested to, nor will engage in fair play and good-faith assumption even after a situation such as the one happening in July, with a massive canvassing involved. As a result, I'll now favour a longer moratorium, from 18 months to 24 or anything beyond that if it's agreed upon. I just think Wikipedia should not get wasted itself into nightmarish discussions like this so often. Impru20talk 16:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I think 2 years would be best. It takes time for language usage to shift significantly to the point that we can positively say that it has become the most common name. Even assuming usage is currently shifting now, I think after a year from now we would still be in a gray area. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In the run-up to the previous RM and the previous moratorium we were averaging a new discussion on this point every week or two. The discussion dominated the article, to the extent that no other improvement was possible. The aim of the moratorium was to give some time for things to actually change IRL before we had to have the same discussion again - and give time for article improvement in the meantime. For this reason, the moratorium needs to cover all naming discussion, not just formal RMs. If the page is allowed to be dominated by move discussion for the entire period of moratorium - as some demanded last time - then the moratorium is pointless.
In terms of how long, it certainly needs to be at least as long as the previous moratorium, and a minimum of 12 months seems sensible. I would suggest no longer than 18 months, just because there is evidence that usage is changing. I would also suggest that we perhaps need to consider how we might prevent the sorts of issues we saw with the current RM - where the RM was started almost immediately after the moratorium expired. The fact that the moratorium end date was clear and known to all meant that the RM could be - and was - significantly advertised externally before it started. Kahastok talk 17:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
All those discussion attempts should have been taken as a clue that the article is at the wrong title. – bradv🍁 17:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Considering how many of them were simple drive by requests from IPs that never edited again or from accounts whose only edits were more of the same "you must do everything the Ukrainian way", no, they shouldn't. This is the first time in history where there is any real change in sources. --Khajidha (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Borscht, according to the most reliable sources, originated in Ukraine. There are regular drive-by editors changing that to Russia. So should we change that information because it is a constant source of irritation to Russian editors? It's also spelled "borscht" in English because we borrowed the word from Yiddish, not Ukrainian. Should we also change the English spelling just because it is a constant source of irritation to both Russian and Ukrainian editors? Drive-by editing is not an indication of misinformation. Ever. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
"Drive-by editing" (also known as "editing") by IPs is how 90%+ of this encyclopedia was written. The opinions of IP editors are no less valid than yours. Lev!vich 02:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
"Opinions" are not a valid basis for decision-making in Wikipedia. You're new to this page, so let me quote the "contributions" of 90% of the IPs who drive-by this page to start "discussions": "'Kiev' is an insult to Ukrainians"; "'Kiev' is Russian propaganda"; "The Rada says it should be 'Kyiv'"; "I demand that you move this article"; etc. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Let me quote some of the "contributions" of a registered editor named TaivoLinguist that are on this page right now: The evidence is unequivocal despite nationalists' best efforts ..., ... this topic is prime real estate for Ukrainian trolls ..., It would not surprise me at all if the sons of the motherland are responding to either an official call or an influential voice in the in-language media to troll Wikipedia., The Cossacks will probably win by default. I fail to see a difference between these quotes and the IPs'. Lev!vich 04:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
LOLOL. What a silly, irrelevant response. Drive-by IPs don't present facts and my IP quotes are the sum total of what they presented as arguments. You really need to examine the archives at Talk:Kiev/naming before continuing on about a disruption problem on this page that you don't seem to know anything about. I know that you'll post another ill-informed attack in support of drive-by IPs here because you don't know any better, but I've said my piece and editors who have been here for more than the few weeks you've been here know precisely what I'm talking about. And just in case you're wondering, my first edit on this Talk page was in 2009 so I do know what I'm talking about in terms of move discussions and disruption. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
This/this and this/this is all the evidence I need to show you have no idea what you are talking about. That you have no idea how to properly use Google to determine COMMONNAME. That you have spent too much time on this talk page and lost your objectivity. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Uh, those links have nothing to do with the contention being argued here? Which is that the large number of IPs and SPAs coming to this page arguing that the page should be moved for non policy-compliant reasons (largely driven by the Ukrainian government's online campaign on this subject) is evidence in and of itself that the article should be moved? Kahastok talk 16:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Kahastok, they have every reason to complain as evidenced by my links. Where is the evidence that the Ukrainian government has made any campaign directed at Wikipedia? BTW, are you going to fix the !vote you "clerked" out of sight? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, you've clearly missed the background here.
Yes, the Ukrainian government has for the past few years operated the "CorrectUA" campaign which aims to change the customary English usage for cities and places in Ukraine. Most prominently, this includes the #KyivNotKiev social media campaign, which targets anyone who refers to the city as Kiev. This article actually contains an image of the letter the Ukrainian government sent Wikipedia asking us to move this article, and many of the IPs and SPAs who came to this page literally used the hashtag #KyivNotKiev.
There is clearly now an argument that can be made that the usage has changed and we should change with it. But that is a recent event. This time last year, the large majority of the sources that advocates of Kyiv are now citing were universally using Kiev. It is patently not Wikipedia's job to campaign for changes to English usage, and if we had moved last year, that is what we would have been doing. This time last year, no reasonable application of WP:AT could lead to a move to this article. Which is why the RM last October/November ended with strong consensus for the article to remain at Kiev. Kahastok talk 17:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Just because User:Coffeeandcrumbs showed up here like a tornado doesn't mean that he understands what User:Levivich and I had been talking about. Like an obnoxious acquaintance who shows up for the last sentence of a long discussion and tries to insert himself into the conversation he barged in with nothing to say that was relevant to the issue of a moratorium. Coffeeandcrumbs read one sentence and then went off on a completely irrelevant and meaningless tangent based on his own frustration at being left out of this conversation because he didn't have Talk:Kiev on his watchlist. Those of us who are truly interested have tracked this on their watchlists for years. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I am perfectly aware of what is going on. My point still stands that the Ukrainian government has not directed anything at Wikipedia. They have every right to advocate the name to the world. Show me one place where they say go to Wikipedia and advocate for a name change. I bet we are the least of their concerns.
I have read this entire page including the subpage. The evidence is clear that you do not know how to properly judge COMMONNAME. Your links at #Survey (July) are seriously flawed and you have misled this RM. Your assertions such as The evidence is unequivocal despite nationalists' best efforts.. show your lack of objectivity on this matter. After derailing this RM, now you are advocating that we put another unreasonable moratorium on this issue so you can continue your WP:OWNERship of this page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
User:Coffeeandcrumbs your comments are still not relevant to the conversation that Levivich and I were having and that you butted into the end of. We were not talking about the documented interference of the Ukrainian government or about the meaning of WP:COMMONNAME. Not in the least. Just so you don't continue ignorantly plowing on like a bull in a china shop, we were discussing the constant disruption to the page by anonymous IPs between formal move requests and the potential length of a moratorium should this RM also fail. That's ALL that we were discussing. So your irrelevant screaming about COMMONNAME wasn't a contribution to our conversation, which had actually concluded before your rude arrival and ranting. Your comments aren't even relevant to the topic of this thread, which is the length of any potential moratorium if the RM fails. Read the section heading. Your comments might belong elsewhere on this page, but not in this thread. Pay attention when you charge onto a Talk Page. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I will make it simple and to the point Any moratorium is unreasonable because watchers of this page do not understand what they are talking about and any failure of any flawed RM in the past is no indication of the outcome of a future RM. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Now that was a relevant comment finally. I've reformatted it so that your comment appears as a contribution to the discussion rather than being lost in the irrelevant part of your posts in this thread. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
No thanks. I have already made a comment below. The above was a response to editors who have been here for more than the few weeks you've been here know precisely what I'm talking about. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I notice that you had not edited on this page before July 2020 and that you have no history whatsoever of editing in Ukrainian topics at any point in your 2.5 years on Wikipedia, so I'm not surprised at your disdain for experienced editors. Were you one of the editors who was recruited to come and support the RM? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs is an editor in good standing. They are not an SPA. Please refrain from this line of inquiry. It is inappropriate. El_C 02:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Noting comment which was self-removed (rightly so). But the canvassing query is still a bit much, notwithstanding that. El_C 02:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I looked back at the RM from November of 2019 and he showed up to oppose the 8-month moratorium at that time (but didn't post a comment on the RM). I was, indeed, wrong about the "spa" marking and that's why I deleted the comment. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
That is not what WP:SPA means. El_C 02:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
That can simply be explained by the article Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump to which I am the major contributor. I only discovered this situation while writing that article. I kept seeing the sources I was using spell it as Kyiv and came here to figure why. You will notice the first time I had to type the name of the city is in the section titled #November 15–16, 2019. When I came here, I realized we were considering placing a 12-month moratorium on the subject. I oppose long moratoriums 100x more than I oppose the name Kiev. It contrary to the spirit of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, specifically that "no editor owns an article and any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited". In this case, mercilessly discussed. If SPAs are a concern, WP:DENY is the good option. Simply do not reply to comments, and {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}} is also available. There are many options besides barring any discussion of the topic. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No less than 12 months, no more than 18, imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Giving the distruptive of this RM by many users, including IP editors which were more than 15 times that RM from Kiev to Kyiv discussed, I suggested a page moratorium for more than 2 years, I proposed 5 years or a decades. It proposed to have take more time for other languages for still think which spelling is best. I'm not involved in this RM regarding changing name from Kiev to Kyiv. 36.68.167.178 (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I think 6 months is more than enough, we live in a fast changing world. 17:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludost Mlačani (talk • contribs)
  • Any moratorium longer than 6 months seems counter to WP:5P3. It has been acknowledged that Kyiv is quickly gaining wider use. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The argument for a longer moratorium on this topic of discussion is to save some editors the trouble of having to reply to some other editors: a “solution” for a problem that doesn’t affect the quality of Wikipedia. The argument for a shorter moratorium, or none at all, is that it promotes communication and allows Wikipedia respond to a changing situation, one that has changed more in the last quarter than in the previous year, more in the last six years than in the previous decade. For Wikipedia, minimize any moratorium. —Michael Z. 20:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Continuous contentious attempts to change prior consensus is called "disruption" in Wikipedia, not "inconvenience", especially when it takes up time that can be spent productively improving the article. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I think you’re mistaken, TaivoLinguist. WP:disruptive editing is when one persistent editor doesn’t know when to stop. When dozens of editors independently make the same valid point and you want to shut them all down, I think you might be the one being disruptive. —Michael Z. 03:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I believe that you need to read the definition you just posted, User:Mzajac: "When one persistent editor". I have never been "one editor", standing alone against a tsunami. The reason this move request didn't succeed years ago or even last November, is that I have never been alone. Your POV is showing. Even now, there has been enough opposition to the move that WP:SNOW cannot be applied, even though that is your fervent wish. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
User:TaivoLinguist WP:POV pushing is a serious accusation; Casting aspersions at other editors without actual serious proof behind those aspirations is not a path towards a productive discussion - I encourage everyone in this discussion to be respectful of others and discuss content, and not the contributor.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Anon IP, WP:DISRUPT is a serious accusation as well, but you ignored User:Mzajac's unwarranted aspersions directed at me without actual serious proof. Is there a reason that you ignored his aspersions while focusing on mine other than the fact that he supports your own POV? Indeed, you have added far more combative verbage on this page than anyone else has and you were blocked for that very thing. I suggest that you stay in your glass house and stop throwing stones. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, TaivoLinguist. It sounds to me like you’re saying that if some editors WP:TAGTEAM then they cannot be WP:DISRUPTIVE. Maybe you’re right. But you haven’t addressed my main point, which wasn’t about you. I disputed your assertion that the many editors proposing the RM over the years were disruptive, per Wikipedia’s specific sense. I think they were acting in good faith, practically every single one. —Michael Z. 02:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Mzajac for clarifying that you weren't accusing me of WP:DISRUPT. I think that we might be using "disruptive" in two different senses. The first, codified in WP:DISRUPT is when a single user goes all in on blocking or disrupting discussion. That's bad and it's something that I sometimes get close to, but try to back off when I notice that it's just me against the world. It's never been the case on this page, however, that I've been alone. (WP:TAGTEAM is also not relevant because just because there are several regular editors doesn't mean that there's any collusion or burden-sharing.) The other meaning of "disruptive" is less Wikipedia legality and just a description of the overall effect of, if not constant then nearly so, demands/requests/pleas that this article be moved. It's not an attack on (most of) the individuals making the posts, but simply a description of the overall effect. Every one of these, if not quickly halted by the stop sign of an official moratorium, has the potential of turning into a time-suck of evidence, arguments, counter-evidence, counter-arguments. It's distracting and virtually prevents any really meaningful progress and improvement in the article because productive discussions quickly get hidden in the maelstrom. There were several every good discussions during the just concluded moratorium that illustrate what can happen when the move requests and move discussions are taken out of the mix. That's the meaning of "disruptive" that I'm using. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
TaivoLinguist, I don’t deserve your thanks. —Michael Z. 03:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In case it isn't clear from my comments in this section or elsewhere on this page, I oppose any move moratorium at this point, especially if it's applied preemptively. Consensus can change, and we can't predetermine a length of time that it might take for consensus to change. The impression I have of move moratoriums is that their existence is evidence that the article is at the wrong title. However, I would support a restriction on any new RMs that they be accompanied by new evidence, and any that don't have new evidence be speedily closed. – bradv🍁 02:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • If it is also uncelar, I'm looking to build on the last moratorium applied to the renaming of this page. Yes, consensus can change, but the pace in which it is challenged needs to be tempered here, is my view. El_C 02:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • El_C, I have never been able to find clear evidence that there was consensus for the previous “moratorium,” or a clear statement of what it was a moratorium on. It was not merely a ban on move requests, but a range of discussion was declared “related to naming” by a small number of editors and shut down at their discretion. This talk page felt like an extremely hostile environment. “Build on the last moratorium” sounds horrible to me. I would appreciate it if any new moratorium was explicitly defined. —Michael Z. 03:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • El_C I would have to agree here with User:Mzajac and say that I too have failed to find clear evidence that there was any consensus for the previous “moratorium”; in fact, as has been aptly shown in my summary entitled "The constant harassing of those editors perceived to be 'enemies' on Talk:Kiev/naming and Talk:Kiev needs to stop" from July 5, 2020 (which you, regretfully, removed (diff) there is no evidence of any consensus to the prior "moratorium", instead it was more of a case of WP:OWNERship-like behaviour when a small number of editors decided to shut down “anything related to naming” at their discretion (even though that is not what other editors in that "moratorium" discussion (such as User:Chrzwzcz and User:Roman_Spinner) agreed to.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I am hoping that there may be no need for a moratorium, but if there is to be one, it should last no longer than six to nine months. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with User:Barkeep49 that the length of a moratorium doesn't need any sort of consensus from enwiki community, and as such sysop El_C should ignore all moratorium length suggestions that were proposed in this section and instead just make a decision themselves (be it 2 years, 5 years or 10 years - it is entirely up to them) and announce it in advance (but unlike on July 2, this time El_C should clearly cite the powers granted to him (and all other enwiki admins) by Arbitration Committee's Discretionary sanctions in relation to WP:ARBEE (which covers all Eastern European topics on enwiki)). P.S. I just realized now why Barkeep49 struck out their original comment and wrote that the moratorium is already in place: El_C did not strike-through their original 2 year moratorium language from July 2, quote I am also enacting a provisional move moratorium of 2 years. Then what is the point of this discussion if El-C has already enacted a 2 year moratorium (implying, but not explicitly citing, powers granted to them by Arbitration Committee's Discretionary sanctions in relation to WP:ARBEE)? (update: until now I did not know about the existence of WP:Arbitration enforcement log page, so I guess El_C did make a log there at WP:AEL that they are enacting a 2 year per WP:ARBEE's ArbCom's DS, but frankly an average Joe editor of enwiki would never know hot to get to WP:AEL, so I would ask El_C to also explicitly reference on this talk page WP:ARBEE's ArbCom's DS if/when they make any more DS-related actions on this page. Thank you) --73.75.115.5 (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Wait a minute. Wasn't 73.75.115.5 blocked from editing here? I see no lifting of the block order that extends to the end of September on their Talk Page. Considering that the anon IP is a clear demonstration of disruptive SPA editing here I don't understand how this editor has been allowed to return. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
@TaivoLinguist I was blocked from Aug 31 to Sept 5, when I was unblocked. Also I am not sure why you are asking this question here again, after you yourself said couple of hours ago on my talk page that you are aware that I was unblocked. p.s. Anyways, my block/unblock is irrelevant to the topic at hand (which is moratorium) and as such I am not sure why we would discuss it here--73.75.115.5 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
We discuss it here because there is no evidence on your Talk Page that you have been unblocked. When I posted on your Talk Page about it, you simply deleted my post. You seem unwilling to discuss it and if you are still blocked then your contributions on this page should be null and void and your participation penalized. If the block is no longer in effect, then there should be an official notice on your Talk Page noting that fact. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
@TaivoLinguist I was unblocked on Sep 5 (diff) you can find all details about it my Talk Page archive: User_talk:73.75.115.5/archive. Also I did not delete your comment, but moved it to my archive (diff). But regardless, I will reiterate my statement above: my block/unblock is irrelevant to the topic at hand (which is moratorium) and as such I am not sure why we would discuss it here, so let's be productive members of this discussion and stay on topic. Thank you.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The last thing I'll say on this matter is that if you were still blocked from participating here, it would be perfectly relevant to the discussion. The fact there there is still a block notice on your Talk Page, but no notice that it has been lifted is relevant. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I could be fine with the unblock if the IP had stuck with what they seemingly promised to do as a condition for being unblocked. However, unilaterally removing the collapsible box of their attacks above and swarming the discussion again as if this talk page was their own backyard (something they keep consistently complaining about when users not supportive of their view post any additional comment) does not seem like "engaging enwiki community through a constructive dialogue". It's curious how the discussion in this talk page returned to calmness and constructiveness from 31 August to 5 September, then once again users are discussing on each others' behaviours as a result of the IP's re-appearance here (just check the discussion above, for Lord's sake). Just saying. Impru20talk 16:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I wish this section would return to discussing the topic at hand (i.e., moratorium) and not me. But since you have mentioned me again, User:Impru20, I kindly ask that you revert you collapsing of the portion of the section "General discussion" ( diff) and as I described in my edit (diff) the bottom part should not be collapsed if the top part is uncollapsed - if we are to collapse anything in the "General discussion" section, it should be collapsed completely (like in the "Off-wiki canvassing" section), particularly because the purpose of that discussion was to make sure editors ensure that if they plan on posting more than one explanation for their voting using a separate paragraph and a * within the "Survey" section, they should instead only post one voting comment using a separate paragraph and a *, and all other voting comments with a separate paragraph and a * should be posted under the "General discussion" section (and not "Survey" section) in order to aid the future closer of this discussion (as was rightly pointed out by sysop El_C) and to ensure that other editors do not get confused by multiple voting comments from a single editor (which was rightly pointed out by sysop Mzajac). Also Impru20 I kindly ask you to please stay civil and WP:Assume good faith about all editors in this discussion, thank you.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The collapsing was agreed with an admin and it's just in the benefit of the discussion. If anyone wishes to read your attacks on other users, they can do so at their own leisure, but that's not a material part of the RM. And excuse me, but in your original edit you complained about it not being collapsed "entirely" rather than it having to do about anything related to any hint on how should others behave (but surely, not through aspersion-casting as you did there). The first comment was on-topic, everything else wasn't, that's why it was done that way. I also remind you that you acknowledged yourself your own disruption there, so that you could get yourself out of the block from this talk page, so please respect the conditions you commited yourself to fulfilling. I kindly ask you two things:
  1. To please stay civil and assume good faith about all editors in this discussion. That includes not getting yourself involved in unfounded accusations against other users.
  2. To please stop bludgeoning the discussion, as well as unilaterally re-editing and re-structuring it in contravention of WP:TALKO, WP:TALK#REPLIED and other related policies. You are the nominator. You have made your stance very clear to everyone in the RM proposal but, in case anyone had any doubt about that, you made yourself sure to fill the whole discussion with replies. It's about time for you to please stop replying everyone everywhere and let others have their chance at giving out their opinions, specially when every discussion you are joining as of lately seems to degenerate into a battleground.
I kindly ask you these two things. Thank you. Impru20talk 17:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I presume El C is looking for thoughts on the duration, as they stated in the original message. It doesn't need consensus to enact, but that doesn't mean an admin can't ask for opinions. Moratoriums aren't limited to DS topics fwiw. As for this title, if it's "on the tipping point" it should be moved rather than keep up this weird time-wasting nonsense. If it's far from tipping point, the situation won't change in 6 months, & certainly not in 1 or 3. This RM alone is almost 300k chars & counting + plus all the crap in archives = a lot of collective community time that could've been better spent elsewhere on wiki, or off it. Last moratorium was 9mo. No moratorium => this RM likely happens again in 2 wks, then 2 wks after that, & again for every minor situational change (or even no change), just like at Killing of George Floyd recently & other articles. That would just be disruptive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
You presume correctly. Note that I already expected that, generally, those who favour the longstanding name would wish to have the moratorium lengthened to the uttermost, while those who favour the evolving name would wish the opposite. That's because I have encountered this perennial tendency on multiple occasions. The fact that if the evolving name gains consensus the moratorium becomes largely a formality is besides the point. There is simply no other way that I know of to prevent RM fatigue from what likely would be a series of constant requests. Anyway, I will render my decision soon. Thanks, everyone, for your input. El_C 16:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I oppose this proposed moratorium and all explicit moratoriums for any specific time period. There is already a requirement to wait a reasonable time and/or for evidence of a reason that consensus may have changed before starting a new RM. That applies here as much as anywhere else. That’s plenty good enough. —-В²C ☎ 06:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing the RM

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

El C noted: My thinking is that this discussion should remain open longer than the usual one week, but I'll leave that at the discretion of the respective closer. Perhaps we should discuss what the plan is for this RM on September 5. It's not exactly ideal to wait around until someone individually decides the appropriate time has passed and closes it. Should it remain open for longer than a week? Ideally we should also know so it can be relisted on the 7th (so the bot can readvertise it), if we're going with a longer period. There's also the question of who's to close, and should it be an admin (noting that although NACs are equally permitted for moves, for a controversial topic like this such a close would likely end up being challenged at MR), it's more a question of the appearance of competence and impartiality, I think. I guess per Editors are under no obligation to wait to close a move request after it is relisted. Once a move request has been open for the full seven days, it may be closed at any time by an uninvolved editor. it should be relisted on the 5th, and any uninvolved editor may close it at any point after the 5th? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Since when is one week usual? For smaller items, sure, since things have died down by the end of one week. Most larger RMs tend to close when input has slowed to a drip, which is often weeks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
This RM should remain open for 30 days at least. Battlegrounds have been drawn on the supporters side. And it does not appear that the opposers have looked at the evidence presented. Most simply state COMMONNAME without offering any evidence to this claim. One opposer, followed by others, argues using Google Trends, which is nonsense considering Chicken Kiev exists.
This needs to be much wider advertised. I did not even know it had reopened until just now. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
It's listed on WP:CD — what else would you recommend? El_C 20:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, that parses as: some people have ventured the Wrong Opinion and we need to wait until I have persuaded them to the Right View. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
JzG, the statement I made is at best stupidly phrased. What I meant to say is that before put another year-long moratorium on the issue, we should let uninvolved editors way in. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the closer (or someone else after the close) should probably slightly refactor/clerk these sections to actually make it readable once archived. Discussions are weirdly split across subsections or entire sections, extended discussions without headings, and some descents into offtopic discussion every now and then. Someone looking at this in a years time will find it quite hard to navigate this, especially the extraneous discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  • At this point, the RM has been running off and on for a good chunk of three months. While there are still one or two editors dribbling in daily, the numbers aren't really changing the overall count (which I don't actually know) because there is a mix of support and oppose votes. When you look at the extended responses to votes and comments they are repetitive and not really adding anything constructive to the narrative. They are too often heated and full of misunderstanding. Even a post on the Administrators Noticeboard looking for an uninvolved admin to close this was turned into a battleground by an editor blocked from posting on this page. I think that it's well past time to close this down and come to a decision. To be honest, my gut feeling is that the votes are leaning to the "Support" side. But whatever the closer decides, I will support it (as I always have). But it's time to butcher the old cow, she's gone dry. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Move review

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have started a move review on Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 September. Please contribute to it, and hopefully we can reach a much wider consensus than we did previously. I'm not aware of Wikipedia Policy on promoting discussions on other Wiki talk pages, but I think we should aim to have a wider range of arguments and views. 118.96.188.179 (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyiv/Archive_7&oldid=1073165328"