Wikipedia

Talk:Kyiv City State Administration

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Mzajac in topic Moving to Kyiv City State Administration
Learn more about this page

Name

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
 
Kyiv City State Administration Letter to Wikimedia Foundation

The page should be renamed to Kyiv City State Administration. See the letterhead of the letter on the right.--Perohanych (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

No. Unless there is a high amount of official documents of the US and UK governments and journals (not those with obvious Ukrainian background) adopt the usage of "Kyiv", you can't change the usage in English Wikipedia in an attempt to influence the global application of the spelling via abuse of Wikipedia.-- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Sameboat: As what appears to be part of a proper noun, why should you use an unofficial spelling? This most certainly is not "abuse". Dustin (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
The letter specifically requests a massive rename for all phrases containing "Kiev" to be replaced by "Kyiv". "Kyiv" is not an English proper noun and all proper nouns in English Wikipedia should use the established English spelling unless it's nowhere to be found in any conventional English dictionary or the term was historically used that way. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
The claim that "Mass Media Resources, e.g. The Guardian, are using the name Kyiv" requires careful verification. As I searched The Guardian website, the use of "Kyiv" in the last month is dominated solely by FC Dynamo Kyiv; when referring to the capital, The Guardian journalists still unmistakeably use "Kiev".[1] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 08:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Kyiv alone may not be (I never suggested changing the Kiev article), but "Kyiv City State Administration" is, or at least it appears to be. Take note that I am not basing this argument on the note to the right (although I do have to wonder why the request document, uploaded in April, is only now coming to light). Dustin (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Such a singular use of Kyiv would contravene WP:CONSISTENCY of usage throughout Wikipedia articles. Outside of that, the author is making claims about the acceptance in Australia, et al. I haven't seen so much as a single instance of the use of 'Kyiv' in the Australian media or Australian Hansard. It was not even used during Poroshenko's visit which included press conferences and Ukrainian diasporic community events where he was constantly accompanied by Prime Minister Abbott. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
user:Iryna Harpy, can you please quote what specifically in WP:CONSISTENCY applies here? —Michael Z. 2020-03-09 01:27 z

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation) says “use official names in article titles.” The question here is not what is the most common name of the city and what that article’s title should be (by the way, Google results for the last week indicated only 55%/45% split for Kiev over Kyiv), but what is the name of this organization. We don’t, for example, change the spelling of the United States Department of Defense in an article that uses British or Canadian spelling (where the noun is spelled defence). Its letterhead belies its own official English name as Kyiv City State Administration. —Michael Z. 2019-10-11 15:14 z

Which is consistent with other articles about organizations, etc., including, for example, FC Dynamo Kyiv, FC Arsenal Kyiv, Kyiv International Airport (Zhuliany), Kyiv Post, BC Kyiv, Kyiv Marathon, Hilton Kyiv, Kyiv Boryspil Express, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Kyiv-Basket, Kyiv Biennial, Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute, FC CSKA Kyiv, Borys Hrinchenko Kyiv University, Maindsher Kyiv, etc. —Michael Z. 2020-03-09 01:15 z
A Google search for the exact name in quotation marks in the last month favours the official form by 47 results to 13 (as always, page to the end to see the correct number of results). —Michael Z. 2020-03-09 14:58 z
A Google news search for the name during the past year yields 199 results for Kyiv City State Administration, and 11 for Kiev City State Administration. —Michael Z. 2020-03-14 00:22 z
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Kiev City State Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.  Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Kiev City State Administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 9 March 2020

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago22 comments10 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Good arguments from both sides, but clearly no agreement or killer argument that the article should be moved. Number 57 21:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Kiev City State Administration → Kyiv City State Administration – The renaming to the official and most-used name is justified per Talk:Kiev City State Administration#Name. user:Khajidha objected to the move on User_talk:Mzajac#Wikipedia:_Naming_Conventions_(Ukrainian_places).  —Michael Z. 2020-03-09 15:53 z 15:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose per WP:CONSISTENT – as long as Kiev is at Kiev, no associated page should be moved to "Kyiv". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Please quote the part of that guideline that’s relevant here? Have you noticed the list of articles about organizations with “Kyiv” in their official names, above? It is this one that is inconsistent in respelling the official name, and violates WP:NCGAL. —Michael Z. 2020-03-10 19:12 z
This tact is not going to win other commenters to your side. The fact is, until you can convince people that "Kyiv" is the English-language WP:COMMONNAME over "Kiev" none of these articles will be moved, and they shouldn't be. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
I’m not sure if you’re understanding me. In #Name, above, I linked to fifteen articles with “Kyiv” in their name. Of course they won’t be renamed, because they are titled correctly, per both WP:NCGAL and WP:COMMONNAME (“that indicates the subject of the article”). It’s not about the most common name of the city. It’s about each organizations’ one and only official name. Anyway, the consistency guidelines are about pattern and don’t overrule common name, so you can, e.g., eat Peking duck in Beijing. —Michael Z. 2020-03-10 22:23 z
  • Support per well-reasoned nomination. The main title header of English Wikipedia article "Kiev" has not yet been moved to "Kyiv" (the next WP:RM for Kiev → Kyiv is scheduled for July 1). In the meantime, however, nominations for other Kiev → Kyiv main header moves can proceed apace, since, as has been pointed out, there are already at least 15 main headers which contain the form "Kyiv", thus if we have such headers as Kyiv International Airport (Zhuliany) or National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, there is no good reason why we would resist Kyiv City State Administration which is, in fact, its English-language official name as much as the other "Kyiv" forms are their English-language names. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per endless discussions on Talk:Kiev. Logically this also applies to other articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    It does not, neither logically, nor according to WP guidelines, because articles are to be titled per the most common name “that indicates the subject of the article.” This article is about this organization, not about the city. Unless you’re planning to start endless discussions on the many articles that have Kyiv in their title. —Michael Z. 2020-03-11 16:12 z
    Most of which should indeed be moved back to Kiev (and in any case, most actually use Kiev). It's just a way to get round the longstanding consensus that the city article should be at Kiev. And see Category:Government of Kiev. How does it make sense for this article to use a different spelling of the city name from the category it's in? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Why are you saying that? It’s untrue. I just checked every official home page: twelve use “Kyiv,” one has no English, and two are defunct with no website. The reason Wikipedia’s titles seem inconsistent to you is because of the article title “Kiev” and WP:NAMECHANGES. But I’ll remind you that our guidelines say to name this article after the subject’s most commonly used name, not after a WP category it’s in. —Michael Z. 2020-03-12 13:51 z
    And I'll remind you that commonly used name means what OTHER people call them when writing about them in English NOT what they call themselves when writing in in English. --Khajidha (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    And I’ll remind you I linked to Google searches that indicate it is. —Michael Z. 2020-03-12 15:33 z
    You mean the search above where the link to the results for the official form is full of articles with titles in Cyrillic script? Not really convincing about general English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Not sure which search you mean. Can you propose a good English-language search? What results does it return? What is the right choice for this article according to the criteria in WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES? —Michael Z. 2020-03-12 18:14 z
    I am not finding any significant references to this body in native English language sources, so there probably ISN'T a common name in that sense. Since it is just a basic descriptive name, a simple translation is valid. That would lead us to using the standard English form "Kiev" as the translation for Ukrainian "Київська". So the logical name for this article is the one it already has, "Kiev City State Administration". --Khajidha (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The organization’s letterhead is a significant reference to its name. You’ll find a picture at the top of this talk page. —Michael Z. 2020-03-12 19:22 z
    What part of "commonly used name means what OTHER people call them when writing about them in English NOT what they call themselves when writing in in English." do you not understand? --Khajidha (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    What part of “use official names in article titles” do you not understand? It’s a Wikipedia guideline for articles about government agencies. —Michael Z. 2020-03-13 20:52 z
    Since you mentioned WP:NCGAL, let's see what it says: "When writing articles on government bodies or offices with native titles not in English, an English translation should be favored, except when reliable sources in the English language commonly use the native title." The NATIVE name of this body is not English and is not "Kyiv City State Administration". It is "Київська міська державна адміністрація" or "Kyivska miska derzhavna administratsiia". THOSE are the official names. The guideline says that we could use those IF that is how the body is usually referred to in English, as "Bundestag" is used for the German parliament. This particular body is not generally referred to by its native name, but by a translation of same. And what is the generally accepted translation of the city's name? According to current consensus here on Wikipedia it is "Kiev". --Khajidha (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The agency does have its own English name and tells us what it is, and it is usually referred to in English by that name.
    There is no such thing as a “generally accepted translation” in Wikipedia (viz. fifteen plus articles with Kyiv). You’re making things up to push for one article’s current title be used to determine others’, which is not according to any guideline. It’s over the top, Khajidha. What is behind this? —Michael Z. 2020-03-14 00:09 z
    our guidelines say to name this article after the subject’s most commonly used name in English-language sources. And no, in this case that clearly doesn't include English-language sources from Ukraine which have a vested interest in changing the spelling. It means English-language sources from countries where English is a first language. Which largely still use Kiev for all purposes. You will need to prove that "Kyiv City State Administration" is the commonly-used name in these sources. You do not seem to have offered any proof of this. If it is, as I suspect, not commonly seen in English at all, then our translation should use the name of the city which we use in the article about the city. And that is Kiev. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    “That clearly doesn't include English-language sources from Ukraine.”—which guideline is that clear from? I don’t believe I have to prove what you say I haven’t proved to follow WP:COMMONNAME, and I don’t believe that guideline or WP:NCGAL suggests using “our translation” which is actually your translation. —Michael Z. 2020-03-12 18:14 z
    The fact that countries where a language is not the predominant one do not get to set standards for that language. This is a basic fact of linguistics, not something specific to Wikipedia. I could probably find you Ukrainian language sources produced in the US, but I would never consider using those as valid sources for Ukrainian usage. --Khajidha (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    If this is about standards, then why are you arguing in favour of a nineteenth-century Russian-empire standard, and against every current English-language and geographic naming guideline, for example, the US BGN Geo Names Search, IATA’s airport locations, the AP Styleguide, Encyclopedia Britannica, etcetera ad nauseaum? I think I’ve listed some of them in Kyiv#Name and a bunch more at Talk:Kyiv#Names used in English standards.
    But this isn’t about the English language at all; it’s about Wikipedia’s guidelines on article naming and the subject of this article. I don’t see any connection between whatever you’re trying to express about “countries,” “standards,” and “basic fact of linguistics” and what’s in the relevant guidelines: WP:COMMONNAME (“article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article’s subject”), WP:NCGAL (“use official names in article titles”), and perhaps WP:NAMECHANGES (“we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change”). Thanks. —Michael Z. 2020-03-13 20:28 z
  • Support as nominator. Relevant guidelines for titling this article are WP:TITLE (“titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject”), its sections WP:COMMONNAME (“an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article”), as this agency’s English name has changed, WP:NAMECHANGES (“we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change”), and as this is a government department, WP:NCGAL (“for articles related to government offices, elections and legislation . . . use official names in article titles”). As of today, Google search for the full name in quotes supports the move by 50 to 17 results for the last month, Google News returns 242 to 25 results, and Google Scholar search of academic sources favours it by 58 to 3 in results since 2016. The organization has used this name as official on its own letterhead, in its own 2015 letter to Wikipedia. Arguments against the move are mainly unconvincing: WP:CONSISTENT is about the form of titles, and does not imply that the title of that article, nor the titles of any categories, should determine a name used in this one (or why shouldn’t this corrected title, or many others determine that one?). Other arguments here try to disqualify some poorly-defined set of undesirable English-language sources, although they have neither demonstrated that this stems from any guidelines, nor that after applying this prejudice, we would not still find that this organization’s name is usually spelled correctly. —Michael Z. 2020-03-16 20:04 z
    • We know you support it. You nominated it. It's not good practice for the nominator to add a "Support" header. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      “Additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point if its inclusion in the nomination statement would make the statement unwieldy.” The guideline doesn’t make it clear whether updating the rationale after the fact is permitted, so I added a bullet point, which is. —Michael Z. 2020-03-17 13:32 z
      User:Necrothesp, you changed my comment to make it look like I had dropped support for this move. My bullet point makes it clear I am the nominator. Please be careful and re-read WP:TPO: “Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking out text (e.g., <del>...</del>)) constitutes a change in meaning. It should be done only by the user who wrote it, or as otherwise provided in this talk page guideline.” —Michael Z. 2020-03-17 13:40 z
      Try not to tell an experienced editor how to suck eggs. I did nothing of the sort. Striking a support is normal practice when a nominator has done it. But if you prefer, please change your own header to "Comment" rather than "Support", as that unduly skews the apparent number of "supports". -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      I haven’t noticed this practice, and I don’t see it mentioned in the guidelines. I’ll bold the whole description so it can’t be missed, but I won’t imply that I don’t support this. Anyway, “The debate is not a vote,” per WP:RMCOMMENT, and whoever decides to close this request should understand that “arguments based in policy, guidelines, and evidence have more weight than unsupported statements.” —Michael Z. 2020-03-17 15:30 z
      They do. But the implication is still that the nominator is trying to "vote" twice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      Comment: The practice is mentioned in WP:RMCOMMENT: Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      Thanks, user:BegbertBiggs. In addition to the above quote about “additional detail, such as sources, may also be provided in an additional bullet point,” the guideline also states “a nominator making a procedural nomination with which they may not agree is free to add a bulleted line explaining their actual position.” I had additional details, which I placed here along with my position. I am glad to move my additional details up into the nomination statement and remove my bullet point here. Is that a permitted solution? I will not label my bullet point in such a way that misrepresents my position as non-supportive, neutral, or having withdrawn (struck-through) support. Please advise how I might proceed. —Michael Z. 2020-03-17 18:44 z
      As I said, you use Comment instead of Support as a label. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY ... and yes, see Talk:Kiev and even Talk:Kiev/naming and Talk:Kiev/naming/old discussion list to see the temporary restriction in place for discussion pertaining to changing "Kiev" to "Kyiv". Steel1943 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Can you quote the applicable passage in WP:CONSISTENCY, because I haven’t been able to find it. Talk:Kyiv was all about renaming that article, and nothing about this one. —Michael Z. 2020-04-05 17:18 z
  • Support per nom. When I had originally seen this, I figured that the case was a no-brainer. I, along with many others have been making sure that consistency is key on this Wiki over the past few years, especially with the KIEv/KYIv debate. However, Mzajac made a great point. If we can maintain articles like FC Dynamo Kyiv or the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (which is it's official spelling, and most commonly used one), why can we not do that for this article? For the main article (Kiev/Kyiv), I would see a much harder transition and more contentious discussion. But this article is not about that. For the purposes of this move proposition, it is clearly evident that Kyiv City State Administration is the most commonly used variant, and as such the article should be moved. § DDima 18:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per WP:CONSISTENCY with the city article, and above opposes.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
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.

Moving to Kyiv City State Administration

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the requested-move discussion above, every single oppose argument cited the name of the article on the city. They are now moot, since Kiev moved to Kyiv. On this basis I see no controversy in just moving the article, which I will now do. —Michael Z. 16:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyiv_City_State_Administration&oldid=1203429554"