Jump to content

Talk:Kyiv: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Requested move 1 July 2020: procedural close and provisional move moratorium enacted
Line 102: Line 102:
== Requested move 1 July 2020 ==
== Requested move 1 July 2020 ==


<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
{{requested move/dated|Kyiv}}
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|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'''. 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 [[WP:AC|Arbitration Committee]] chooses to examine this, I will of course defer to their respective decision. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
----


[[:Kiev]] → {{no redirect|Kyiv}}
[[:Kiev]] → {{no redirect|Kyiv}}
Line 287: Line 292:
:::I would strongly suggest that this whole matter (not just the [[WP:CANVASS]]ing 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. --[[User:TaivoLinguist|TaivoLinguist (Taivo)]] ([[User talk:TaivoLinguist|talk]]) 14:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
:::I would strongly suggest that this whole matter (not just the [[WP:CANVASS]]ing 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. --[[User:TaivoLinguist|TaivoLinguist (Taivo)]] ([[User talk:TaivoLinguist|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. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 14:46, 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. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 14:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
----
: ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>

Revision as of 15:12, 2 July 2020

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeKyiv was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 21, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
May 23, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 25, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Naming standards

Closed per the moratorium. If (as the OP claims) it isn't a name changing discussion then it isn't a discussion on improving the article, so WP:NOTFORUM applies, and closing is still the correct option. Kahastok talk 21:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 have a question to fellow Wikipedia experts. I can see a large discussion on new Kyiv name and the arguments is based on popularity of the new name in the press and internet as the reason for name change. And yet if we look at for example Astana article - it was renamed to Nur-Sultan despite Astana was still obviously popular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nur-Sultan

Astana (85 million Google results) vs Nur-Sultan (55 million Google results). https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEB_enNZ854NZ854&sxsrf=ALeKk01FklM13hJ6oQfLgIaJ26gtj2yNsg%3A1583697152269&ei=AE1lXrSKEJaf9QOP0IbgBQ&q=Nur-Sultan&oq=Nur-Sultan&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i67l3j0l7.1334.1334..1534...0.2..0.180.180.0j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.NKdKpuZeYeU&ved=0ahUKEwi0isXR04voAhWWT30KHQ-oAVwQ4dUDCAs&uact=5 https://www.google.com/search?q=Astana&rlz=1C1GCEB_enNZ854NZ854&oq=Astana&aqs=chrome..69i57.1822j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Why do we have double standards here?

Note: Its not a request on name change, but more a discussion on the Wikipedia common rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odessit1989 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because no one has heard of Astana (I haven't) so no one had it on their watchlist to oppose any changes. Kiev is extremely well known. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:50, 8 March 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.

Revert

User:Ymblanter, learn the wikipedia rules, please, although you should have done it long before. There is only one state language in Ukraine, so we don't need to add the translation into any other languages, except for Ukrainian. For instance, we don't add the name of Moscow in the Uzbek language --Devlet Geray (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC) p.s. I am not against Kiev as the name of the article --Devlet Geray (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single policy of the English Wikipedia which says we should only give the name in the state language. Quite the opposite. Since you apparently are familiar with the policies much better than I am (thank you for kindly advising me to learn the policies), it must be trivially easy for you to find what exactly applies here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't new york have it's name in spanish then? Blindlynx (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because Spanish was never the state language of New York, while Russian was, indeed, the state language of Ukraine for a few centuries. Check out Lviv where Polish is included because, wait for it, Lviv was part of Poland for centuries. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So is it because of historical ownership or "languages a significant part of their population speak"? if it's the former why not have Munsee and Dutch in the article for New York? Blindlynx (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no longer a significant portion of the population of New York that speak either Dutch or Munsee. Don't even try to claim that there is not a significant portion of the population of Kyiv that speaks Russian. So Russian and Polish (and Hungarian in Transcarpathia) are former state languages AND still have significant portions of the population that speak them in those cities (I've spoken Hungarian in Uzhhorod and seen the Polish flags around Lviv). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You saying Lviv has a significant portion of the population that still speaks Latin? or Gdańsk one that speaks German?Blindlynx (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are straying into silliness now. The bottom line is that you can find examples of anything in Wikipedia, that's why we always remember WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you're trying to do something unique, there is a problem, but if what you are doing is done elsewhere then that's probably OK. But ultimately each article is individual and bound by WP:CONSENSUS at that article. You don't have any consensus here for your POV. You're just pushing a Ukrainian-only agenda that you will find no support for among the majority of English-speaking editors who work on the English Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not pushing for anything, i'm not the one who changed it. I'm just trying to understand what the justification for leaving out Polish, or Lithuanian or whatever here is. It's infuriating that everything is so inconsistently applied! Lviv gets a pile or languages (including Russian) and honestly i think that's probably what should happen here too but i'm not going to change it without figuring out what it should be, given how heating this page always gets.Blindlynx (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"just trying to understand" is pretty simple. Every page is different until you can convince a majority of the editors of a given page that it isn't. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The actual style guideline is at MOS:FORLANG. The other why’s mentioned above are not authoritative. —Michael Z. 2020-05-16 00:40 z
I find it humorous that someone actually quotes a manual of style entry that includes the word "typically". That's not a hard and fast rule because you can find multiple exceptions to it no matter what region of the world you look at. In other words, "typically" means "on the average", not "must". Editors ignore MOS:FORLANG and WP:CONSENSUS overrides it. It works like a guideline, not as a hard and fast policy. Don't try to wikilawyer it, local consensus will always trump it. Look at the top of the page for MOS:FORLANG and you will see the keyword "guideline" and not "policy". Michael Z is wrong, the MOS is not authoritative over consensus because it's just a guideline. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. Can you quote the parts that were “wrong” and “wikilawyering”? Because I’m not seeing them. You know, in what I wrote, not in your slagging me. —Michael Z. 2020-05-16 16:43 z 16:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tht's easy. You were wrong in your implication that discussion is over because you posted a link to a "guideline" as if it were authoritative and consensus was not. Insisting that a guideline is more authoritative than local consensus is wikilawyering. Whether you were "insisting" or not is open to interpretation, but in the context of the discussion when you flatly said that only your post is authoritative was over-the-top wikilawyering and was wrong because a consensus always trumps a guideline. I haven't even mentioned that the wording of the guideline is open to local interpretation and doesn't lay down a hard and fast rule. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

Its population in July 2015 was 2,887,974[1] (though higher estimated numbers have been cited in the press),[12] making Kiev the sixth-most populous city in Europe.

This needs to be changed to seventh-most populous city in Europe. Ianmci (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be changed to seventh-most populous city in Europe Ianmci (talk) 05:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 July 2020

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. 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)[reply]


Kiev → Kyiv

Since October 2019 when the ban/moratorium 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 the chronological list of those major updates:

--73.75.115.5 (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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

Arbitrary heading

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Oppose. The most common English name/spelling is still Kiev. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per detailed nomination. Would be odd to use different spelling from all of our reliable sources (and insonsistent with most similar articles, e.g. Lviv, Kharkiv, Dnipro, Zaporizhia, Kryvyi Rih, Mykolaiv, Luhansk et cetera). 3fingeredPete (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The common name in reliable sources, particularly high-quality ones, is clearly Kyiv. In light of the Ukrainian government's 2018 request to use Kyiv, I would also urged participants (and the closer) to take into account WP:NAMECHANGES. Calidum 14:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a change to Kyiv per WP:MODERNPLACENAME and WP:NPOVTITLE. There's been a sea change in how to approach this since the last requested move in 2019. I haven't seen anyone mention NPOV, but I think neutrality plays a very important role here. First off, the official language of Ukraine is Ukrainian. It was 25 years ago now that the Ukrainian government adopted Kyiv as its standard Latinization. The name Kyiv means "belonging to Kyi", who, according to legend, was founder of the city. Ukraine's oldest English newspaper is named the Kyiv Post. The city's name is Київ in Ukrainian and Киев in Russian. 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. "For many Ukrainians today it is now associated with so-called “Russification” - banning the use of Ukrainian language in print and other actions by Russian Empire and then Soviet State to strengthen Russian linguistic and political positions in Ukraine." I would remind those invoking COMMONNAME that it 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. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names approved the spelling Kyiv in 2006 and in 2019 actually delisted "Kiev" as a conventional name. The sources listed by the nominator demonstrate that Kyiv has become the overwhelmingly preferred transliteration of reputable sources. gobonobo + c 17:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
so much for assume good faith... blindlynx (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • That has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on article naming. - BilCat (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Support - per WP:MPN, and WP:NPOV. Tāwhiwhi (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note- new account only edit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Comment I added this discussion to WP:CENT. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Off-wiki canvassing confirmed

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Very sad, but not unexpected given its past. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kyiv&oldid=965644266"