This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
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: moved. Absent any argument that the second bullet point of
WP:KYIV does not apply (and it clearly does – something that happened in 1982 is "clearly historical"), then the consensus of the 2020 RfC holds until a further discussion finds that it doesn't. (
closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (
talk) 08:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This just exemplifies why the rationale-free “in historical articles” decision and its arbitrary cutoff dates are nonsense. Every single article link in this article is a subject that transcends 1982 and rightly uses the spelling Kyiv. The subjects of every article in the main
Category:1500th anniversary of Kyiv transcend 1982. At this point, imposing the Russian spelling on this article is just pandering to people that can’t tolerate spellings they hadn’t been taught when they graduated school, presumably around 1982, people that insist that Wikipedia readers are best served by a random hodgepodge of spellings in the article
History of Kyiv, or people that can’t tolerate acknowledging that post-colonial Ukraine has its own language. Let’s stop tolerating this juvenile or colonial attachment to an obsolete spelling. It’s an embarrassment. —MichaelZ. 17:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Not a single source is cited using the proposed spelling. —MichaelZ. 17:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Hmm, I tested this with an
ngram of both names. "1500th anniversary of Kyiv" did not show up in the search, while "1500th anniversary of Kiev" did show up in the search.
Wikiexplorationandhelping (
talk) 19:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
There is no basis to diverge from the normal rule of using the main-article title’s spelling. —MichaelZ. 15:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Support - per and the convention referenced in the nomination. We don't change any reference to Constantinople in historical context to Istanbul, so why should this be different?
Estar8806 (
talk) 03:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Constantinople and Istanbul are two different names. Kyiv and Kiev are just different spellings of the same name.
SuperΨDro 19:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose sources use 'Kyiv' or are in Uki—
blindlynx 03:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Was called Kiev at the time.
SnowFire (
talk) 01:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose there is no real benefit from this move, other than following a convention that contradicts other Wikipedia policies such as
WP:COMMONNAME. Let's quit imposing a name over a city that it vehemently rejects.
SuperΨDro 19:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Mzajac and Super Dromaeosaurus. --
Nagsb (
talk) 08:33, 9 April 2023 (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.
Result of requested move 2 April 2023
This
request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
I would have preferred to see the Requested move 2 April 2023 closed as no consensus result, as the result was 4 - 5 support - oppose !votes. This gives the oppose side a majority of !votes, and the closure sentence doesn't mention the oppose sides citation of
WP:COMMONNAME and
WP:NAMECHANGES.
I would start a
WP:MOVEREVIEW, but there's no point if there's no chance of the result being overturned, so I'm asking an admin's opinions.
Discussion are
not a vote, but a weighing of arguments and how Wikipedia policies apply. Personally I don't see any errors in the review and close of the discussion, but if you feel that certain policies were not applied properly or not considered, you should request a review.
331dot (
talk) 10:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
It’s a
WP:CONLEVEL thing: whilst the consensus in the RM alone is against moving (and I admit, I’m sympathetic without an editor hat on), we do have a more global consensus to go with the Russian spelling for Soviet Ukraine topics. Sceptre (
talk) 11:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Sceptre, my reading of the second bullet point is that pages should not be moved if they discuss an unambiguously historical topic, because the bullet point uses the wording "do not change existing content". this page was created using the spelling "Kyiv", so a move that changes the spelling used to "Kiev" would change the existing content, violating the second bullet point. am i not reading this correctly?i would have assumed that, had the second bullet point advocated the use of "Kiev" in unambiguously historical topics, it would have used the wording "Kiev is preferred", in the same way that the first bullet point uses the wording "Kyiv is preferred". i got the impression from the rfc that the second bullet point was so worded to prevent edit wars rather than determine the spelling to be used for historical topics, and that an rfc may be held in the future if reliable sources start preferring the use of "Kyiv" when discussing historical topics. (had the rfc been intended to be prescriptive, i think the first bullet point would have said something like "use Kyiv" instead.)at the time i created the page, i could not find any reliable english-language sources definitively using an english-language proper name for the anniversary, but amongst the recent ones that used a descriptive phrase to refer to the event, there seemed to be a strong preference for "Kyiv". (even english-language russian source meduza uses it
here.) the 'a' in this article's title was not capitalized to emphasize the fact that i was using a descriptive phrase rather than a proper name.
dying (
talk) 01:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I thought of having a RfC on the issue as well. We could start a RfC to allow analyses of cases individually, so that the conventions on Kyiv do not override general rules and policies of Wikipedia. It is nonsense that Kyiv here is the most common name but that we are using the outdated name, rejected by the city's inhabitants. It kind of even feels like a blatant insult to them.
SuperΨDro 18:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
It's weird that and RFC overrides
wp:RS in this case right? Archaic names and spelling for Ukrainian places feel extra insulting lately but that's not exactly a thing polices address—
blindlynx 00:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Not sure if I understood your comment. My idea was not to add another layer but to make a RfC to end the prevalence of the Kyiv conventions over Wikipedia policies.
SuperΨDro 13:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Sorry, i'm agreeing with you. For this article the RS using 'kyiv' but twas overridden by the 2020 rfc, that feel like its a bad outcome right?—
blindlynx 14:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The basic problem is the systemic contradiction of the “the consensus of the 2020 RfC”: it was a pure
WP:VOTE based on the personal preferences of the participants. Neither its proposal nor its decision referred to any logical rationale based on guidelines or reliable sources. Participants expounded on a number of rationales that had nothing to do with sources, based on unfounded factoids and assumptions and prejudices. That vote was conducted with the participation of a much smaller number of enthusiasts than the much broader and longer discussion which ended with the retitling of the main article
Kyiv.
This RM is essentially enforcing the tyranny of the few who participated then on the rest of the encyclopedia.
In fact, current sources on Ukrainian history prevalently use the spelling Kyiv, perhaps even more so than the corpus of all sources. That RFC should be overturned and Ukrainian history articles should use the current spelling following Ukrainian history sources.
This situation is ridiculous. —MichaelZ. 16:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
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: moved. Absent any argument that the second bullet point of
WP:KYIV does not apply (and it clearly does – something that happened in 1982 is "clearly historical"), then the consensus of the 2020 RfC holds until a further discussion finds that it doesn't. (
closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (
talk) 08:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This just exemplifies why the rationale-free “in historical articles” decision and its arbitrary cutoff dates are nonsense. Every single article link in this article is a subject that transcends 1982 and rightly uses the spelling Kyiv. The subjects of every article in the main
Category:1500th anniversary of Kyiv transcend 1982. At this point, imposing the Russian spelling on this article is just pandering to people that can’t tolerate spellings they hadn’t been taught when they graduated school, presumably around 1982, people that insist that Wikipedia readers are best served by a random hodgepodge of spellings in the article
History of Kyiv, or people that can’t tolerate acknowledging that post-colonial Ukraine has its own language. Let’s stop tolerating this juvenile or colonial attachment to an obsolete spelling. It’s an embarrassment. —MichaelZ. 17:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Not a single source is cited using the proposed spelling. —MichaelZ. 17:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Hmm, I tested this with an
ngram of both names. "1500th anniversary of Kyiv" did not show up in the search, while "1500th anniversary of Kiev" did show up in the search.
Wikiexplorationandhelping (
talk) 19:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)reply
There is no basis to diverge from the normal rule of using the main-article title’s spelling. —MichaelZ. 15:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Support - per and the convention referenced in the nomination. We don't change any reference to Constantinople in historical context to Istanbul, so why should this be different?
Estar8806 (
talk) 03:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Constantinople and Istanbul are two different names. Kyiv and Kiev are just different spellings of the same name.
SuperΨDro 19:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose sources use 'Kyiv' or are in Uki—
blindlynx 03:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Was called Kiev at the time.
SnowFire (
talk) 01:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose there is no real benefit from this move, other than following a convention that contradicts other Wikipedia policies such as
WP:COMMONNAME. Let's quit imposing a name over a city that it vehemently rejects.
SuperΨDro 19:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Mzajac and Super Dromaeosaurus. --
Nagsb (
talk) 08:33, 9 April 2023 (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.
Result of requested move 2 April 2023
This
request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
I would have preferred to see the Requested move 2 April 2023 closed as no consensus result, as the result was 4 - 5 support - oppose !votes. This gives the oppose side a majority of !votes, and the closure sentence doesn't mention the oppose sides citation of
WP:COMMONNAME and
WP:NAMECHANGES.
I would start a
WP:MOVEREVIEW, but there's no point if there's no chance of the result being overturned, so I'm asking an admin's opinions.
Discussion are
not a vote, but a weighing of arguments and how Wikipedia policies apply. Personally I don't see any errors in the review and close of the discussion, but if you feel that certain policies were not applied properly or not considered, you should request a review.
331dot (
talk) 10:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
It’s a
WP:CONLEVEL thing: whilst the consensus in the RM alone is against moving (and I admit, I’m sympathetic without an editor hat on), we do have a more global consensus to go with the Russian spelling for Soviet Ukraine topics. Sceptre (
talk) 11:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Sceptre, my reading of the second bullet point is that pages should not be moved if they discuss an unambiguously historical topic, because the bullet point uses the wording "do not change existing content". this page was created using the spelling "Kyiv", so a move that changes the spelling used to "Kiev" would change the existing content, violating the second bullet point. am i not reading this correctly?i would have assumed that, had the second bullet point advocated the use of "Kiev" in unambiguously historical topics, it would have used the wording "Kiev is preferred", in the same way that the first bullet point uses the wording "Kyiv is preferred". i got the impression from the rfc that the second bullet point was so worded to prevent edit wars rather than determine the spelling to be used for historical topics, and that an rfc may be held in the future if reliable sources start preferring the use of "Kyiv" when discussing historical topics. (had the rfc been intended to be prescriptive, i think the first bullet point would have said something like "use Kyiv" instead.)at the time i created the page, i could not find any reliable english-language sources definitively using an english-language proper name for the anniversary, but amongst the recent ones that used a descriptive phrase to refer to the event, there seemed to be a strong preference for "Kyiv". (even english-language russian source meduza uses it
here.) the 'a' in this article's title was not capitalized to emphasize the fact that i was using a descriptive phrase rather than a proper name.
dying (
talk) 01:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I thought of having a RfC on the issue as well. We could start a RfC to allow analyses of cases individually, so that the conventions on Kyiv do not override general rules and policies of Wikipedia. It is nonsense that Kyiv here is the most common name but that we are using the outdated name, rejected by the city's inhabitants. It kind of even feels like a blatant insult to them.
SuperΨDro 18:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply
It's weird that and RFC overrides
wp:RS in this case right? Archaic names and spelling for Ukrainian places feel extra insulting lately but that's not exactly a thing polices address—
blindlynx 00:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Not sure if I understood your comment. My idea was not to add another layer but to make a RfC to end the prevalence of the Kyiv conventions over Wikipedia policies.
SuperΨDro 13:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Sorry, i'm agreeing with you. For this article the RS using 'kyiv' but twas overridden by the 2020 rfc, that feel like its a bad outcome right?—
blindlynx 14:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The basic problem is the systemic contradiction of the “the consensus of the 2020 RfC”: it was a pure
WP:VOTE based on the personal preferences of the participants. Neither its proposal nor its decision referred to any logical rationale based on guidelines or reliable sources. Participants expounded on a number of rationales that had nothing to do with sources, based on unfounded factoids and assumptions and prejudices. That vote was conducted with the participation of a much smaller number of enthusiasts than the much broader and longer discussion which ended with the retitling of the main article
Kyiv.
This RM is essentially enforcing the tyranny of the few who participated then on the rest of the encyclopedia.
In fact, current sources on Ukrainian history prevalently use the spelling Kyiv, perhaps even more so than the corpus of all sources. That RFC should be overturned and Ukrainian history articles should use the current spelling following Ukrainian history sources.
This situation is ridiculous. —MichaelZ. 16:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)reply