Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Nonsense

Am I the only person who sees a logical fallacy in the statement "Whilst the standard transliteration of the Ukrainian name of the city with special status also known as Kiev in the English language is Kyiv, this form was less commonly used in English until recently"? It literally says ""Kyiv" was not in use in the past, it is a recent phenomenon, but it IS a standard transliteration". How can the transliteration that is still less frequently be a "standard"? Paul Siebert (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

This data ends in 2019, and doesn't reflect the very recent and sharp shift in usage. Regardless, this was decided on when the Wikipedia article was moved from Kiev to Kyiv back in September 2020. You can read the many arguements that were raised in the archives at Talk:Kyiv/naming. Hope this helps answer your question. Hecseur (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The decision was made about the article's title. It was not a decision on what name is standard. Any statements in Wikipedia (except talk pages) must be supported by RS and reflect what majority RS say.

WRT ngram, we cannot predict future. Let's wait how the events will develop. So far, I see no evidence that "Kyiv" has bacome a standard spelling. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

There’s no logical fallacy for anyone to see. The standard transliteration is the spelling according to the standardized system for romanization of Ukrainian. clear now?  —Michael Z. 14:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

These two reverts and edit summaries may be understood as a total ignorance of our policy.

[1] Hecseur, if you look at the top of the page, the banner says that in is neither a policy or guidelines.

[2] Mzajac, you are an admin, you are supposed to know our policy: do you really think consensus is needed to place the "cn" tag? Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how putting a "cn" tag makes any sense in a naming convention in the first place. The purpose of the information here is to guideline edits to the Wiki according to consensus. Template:Citation needed reads: "The citation needed template is intended for use when there is a general question of the verifiability of a statement, or when an editor believes that a reference verifying the statement should be provided." The specific issue here isn't that "there isn't proof that Kyiv is a standard romanisation of Київ from Ukrainian, it requires a citation for verification", the issue is that this specific message is poorly communicated. A purpose of the "cn" tag is also that it automatically adds the page to maintenance categories, and there is no category for "WP-space articles with unsourced statements", so I highly doubt this is appropriate usage. Hecseur (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

"The purpose of the information here is to guideline edits to the Wiki according to consensus" Actually, no. This page by no means reflects any consensus. It is not a policy, and even not guidelines. If you claim that "Kyiv" is a standard English word, and "Kiev" is not, you are supposed to provide some source. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

This page has 8 years worth of various discussions; It reflects the consensus achieved by them. As of today, both "Kiev" and "Kyiv" are used as English words, Kyiv being used predominantly in recent coverage. There is no such claim here that "Kiev is not a standard English word", that is a strawman arguement. The current phrasing reads, as everyone here has already mentioned, that Kyiv is the standard romanisation of this city's name in the accepted transliteration system for Ukrainian (which applies to all things transliterated from Ukrainian, cities included).

As for your question regarding the difference between "spelling" and "transliteration" I had ChatGPT write an excellent explanation:

"Transliteration is the process of representing the characters or sounds of one writing system in another writing system. It involves converting the letters or characters of one language into equivalent or similar letters or characters in another language. Transliteration is commonly used when dealing with languages that have different writing systems or when trying to represent names or terms from one language in another language. The goal of transliteration is to capture the pronunciation or phonetics of the original language as accurately as possible in the target language.

Spelling, on the other hand, refers to the arrangement of letters and the sequence of characters used to represent the words and sounds of a particular language. It involves following the accepted rules and conventions of a language to represent words correctly. Spelling encompasses the correct choice and arrangement of letters, including the use of diacritics, accent marks, and other orthographic symbols, to accurately represent the pronunciation and meaning of words within a specific language."

In this specific case, the accepted rules and conventions of English have changed; While in the past "Kiev" was the only accepted word for the name of the city, nowadays the standard transliteration from Ukrainian, "Kyiv", has become predominant in its usage in media coverage. "Kiev" is still an English word, and on Wikipedia is used extensively to refer to the city in historical contexts. Any modern coverage uses the much more common "Kyiv", which is the standard Ukranian transliteration. The guidelines established in the Kiev/Kyiv section of the page (which mind you, are not OFFICIAL Wikipedia guidelines, but are guidelines of the accepted consensus) clearly define when you should use the name "Kyiv" and when you should use the name "Kiev" on Wikipedia. Outside of Wikipedia "Kiev" can absolutely be used to refer to the city in whichever context you would like, as it is an English word that refers to this same city, but on Wikipedia the usage of either of the terms is decided by the current consensus. Hecseur (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Why do you believe the Ukrainians have an exclusive right to change English spelling? What about Czech (Praha/Prague), Polish (Warzawa/Warsaw), Italian (Roma/Rome), Portugese (Lisboa/Lisbon), Serbian (Београд (Beograd)/Belgrde), Russian (Москва(Moskva)/Moscow)?

Interestingly, to demonstrate you a difference between a transliteration of a Russian name and the English word, I canremind you the Russian military ship sank during the Ukrainian-Russian war. The name of the ship is Москва (it was named after the Russian capital Москва). However, in English, the word is transcribed as "Moskva", not "Moscow".

That is a difference between the Russian word "Москва" and the English name "Moscow".

Furthermore, as you probably know, in the Moscow dialect, they pronounce it like "Maskva". Imagine that Russian orthography reform will change the rules, and "Москва" becomes "Масква". Will it have any effect on the English word "Moscow"? Absolutely not. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Ops, I forgot another capital, Sofia. According to romanization of Bulgarian rules, a correct spelling of the name "София" should be "Sofiya", not "Sofia".

That is an additional demonstration of the difference between romanisation and English spelling. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

By having said that, I fully agree with you that a correct romanisation of the Ukrainian name Київ should be "Kyiv". And that is what Wikipedia should say: the city that is known under its English name "Kiev" is called "Kyiv" in Ukrainian. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I’ll try again, from the beginning.

Am I the only person who sees a logical fallacy. . . ? Apparently yes.

It literally says ""Kyiv" was not in use in the past. it literally does not. It literally says what Paul Siebert quoted just before that: “this form was less commonly used.” It refers to a form, meaning a particular spelling.

How can the transliteration that is still less frequently be a "standard”? “Standard transliteration from Ukrainian” does not mean “most commonly used form.” The concepts aren’t even comparable.

There are various standards. Some are little used. This is the chief standard romanizing Ukrainian names in Ukraine (according to the 2010 Ukrainian National system), internationally (according to the United Nations GEGN), and in Wikipedia (according to WP:UKR).

But the form Kiev is not a transliteration from Ukrainian, standard or non-standard. It is a spelling derived from a Russian name. The sentence refers to apples and oranges, but it does not compare them.

There is no contradiction nor logical fallacy in the sentence that Paul Siebert insists on tagging. He writes as if he were demanding absolutely disciplined logic in the convention, but actually analyzes it with no logic or discipline at all, and demands answers nonsensical, unanswerable questions. He refuses to listen to explanations that don’t lead to meeting his demands (for what exactly, removal of the sentence? Some unspecified change to the entire romanization convention?).

This is a big waste of time.  —Michael Z. 03:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

What is a difference between "transliteration" and "spelling"?

Are, the word "pogrom", "gulag", "sputnik" etc, English words or transliterations of Russian words? It is hard to tell, but we have serious reason to conclude they became English words. Thus, I frequently see something like "in the gulags". This form (plural) is never used in Russian, so it is an indication that this word became the English word. Similar to that, "Kiev" (like "Belgrade", "Sofia", "Moscow", "Prague", "Rome" etc) are English words. It doesn't matter from which language each of them came to English: they all are English words, and they will change only if these cities will be renamed (e.g. "Moscow" -> "Putingrad", "Kiev" -> "Zelensk", etc).

Yes, Kyiv is an official Ukrainian name of the capital of Ukraine (transliterated according to the Ukrainian romanisation rules), and in English we call it "Kiev". Because we call София "Sophia" (not "Sofiya"), and we call Москва "Moscow" (not "Moskva"). Paul Siebert (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

But the form Kiev is not a transliteration from Ukrainian, standard or non-standard. It is a spelling derived from a Russian name. I am sure "Prague" was derived not from modern Czech, "Cologne", "Vienna" or "Munich" was derived not from modern German, and the Hague not from Dutch. So what? Paul Siebert (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Language changes. It used to be true that in English we call it "Kiev" – it isn't any more. Time to move on. – Joe (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to see the proof. So far, I got nothing. By 2019, "Kiev" was used much more frequently according to ngram. Even if today's statistics will be published, and it shows that "Kyiv" started to dominate, that may be just a local fluctuation. Some reasonably long time need to pass to make sure this transition has occurred.

Actually, I already wrote about that, but I repeat it again: English names of a majority of historically important European cities are different from their spelling in their local languages: Prague, Warsaw, Rome, Lisbon, Belgrade, Sofia, Vienna, Munich, Cologne, Moscow, Antwerp, Copenhagen, Naples, Athens, the Hague, Hamburg, Brussels (I am sure that list is by no means complete). And the fact that Kiev belongs to this "noble family" is an indication of its historical importance. Don't destroy that precious heritage. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Now I see why Paul Siebert’s 800 words request no actual change in the text. He is trying to WP:right great wrongs: a “precious heritage” of English language that sources tell us is a Russian colonial name.

I refer again to P. S.’s question number one: “am I the only person?” Yes, yes you are. There is no consensus or agreement to change this information page or tag it.

There is no movement in this discussion either. P. S. ought to leave it be if he can’t find any support for his views.  —Michael Z. 15:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:OWN?

It seems Mzajac implies that in XVIII century, Ukraine (as a nation) was a colony of Russia (as a nation-state). That view is a typical primordialism.

Actually, I am feeling that we need to specify the status of this page. It seems it reflects some local consensus that may be inconsistent with our policy. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I’m not implying that, @Paul Siebert. I’ve asked you before to stop casting aspersions by falsely labelling me with that term. Please strike or remove it.  —Michael Z. 18:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I will gladly strike my words if you explain me what exactly did you mean under "Russian colonial name". So far I got not answer to this question, which I asked several times.

I have serious reason to suspect that "Russian colonial name" is an euphemism invented by Mzajac himself, and that that term is not used by a scholarly community in this context. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I decided to check if I am biased. This and this are exhaustive lists of sources that mention Kiev/Kyiv and the words "colonial name". It is easy to see that none of those sources mentions Kiev in the "colonial name" context.

From that, I conclude that would probably not be an exaggeration to call the views expressed by Mzajac as a primordialist POV, which is not supported by reliable sources. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

You've provided your own evidence: the ngram you posted above shows quite clearly that Kiev is no longer the only name for the city in English. Usage is split, and that is all this page says. And yes, I think we're all aware that exonyms are a thing. – Joe (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: the fact that usage is split is undeniable, and I cannot rule out a possibility that we are witnessing a transition from "Kiev" to "Kyiv". However, the text currently says:

"Whilst the standard transliteration of the Ukrainian name of the city with special status also known as Kiev in the English language is Kyiv, this form was less commonly used in English until recently, and "Kiev" was the longstanding title of Wikipedia's article on the subject."

In other words, the text implies that the standard transliteration is "Kyiv". In other words, it says that this transition has already occurred. This bold statement needs a confirmation. So far, I've seen no conformation. Until recently, my text editor was recognizing "Kyiv" as a typo. "Kyiv" has always been a less common version of this name: even before "Kiev" became a common name (in 1800s), various forms of the Polish version ("Kijow" etc) were common in English literature. That means "Kyiv" had never been a standard name, so it is obviously a neologism.

You correctly pointed out that "Kiev" (like Prague, Warsaw, Rome, Lisbon, Belgrade, Sofia, Vienna, Munich, Cologne, Moscow, Antwerp, Copenhagen, Naples, Athens, the Hague, Hamburg, Brussels) is an exonym, i.e. an established, non-native name for a geographical place. The difference between an exonym and a transliteration of an endonym is that the former is an English word (which obeys English rules), whereas the latter is a word of a local language.

Since English exonyms are English words, Ukrainians (Russians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Poles, Italians etc) have no authority over them. They can teach English speakers how to correctly transliterate their cities names, but they cannot tell us how should we spell our exonyms. Germans call themselves "Deutsch", Russians call themselves "Russky", Ukrainians call themselves "Ukrainets", etc. but English speakers do not care. We use exonyms instead of transliterations for almost every European nation names and for the name of almost every European capital or a historically important cities: why do me make an exception for the capital of Ukraine? Paul Siebert (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

This is simply due to WP:NAMECHANGES. As you would've seen in the many citations in the discussions at Talk:Kyiv/naming, recent media coverage as early as 3 years ago in independent, reliable English-language sources routinely and commonly used the name "Kyiv". I'd say it's highly likely even more sources use Kyiv now following the Russian invasion. Wikipedia article titles are not decided by the fact an English exonym exists, but by the relevant Wikipedia policy. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Use English: If a native name is more often used in English sources than a corresponding traditional English name, then use the native name. Two examples are Livorno and Regensburg, which are now known more widely under their native names than under the traditional respective English names "Leghorn" and "Ratisbon". The reason the article was moved from Kiev to Kyiv in the first place was because the move abided the existing policy, and it is by no means an exception. Hecseur (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

As I already wrote, I agree that during the last year (already after the Kiev article had been renamed) teh word "Kyiv" is found much more frequently than "Kiev", and if that situation will not change during next years, we probably can conclude that the "Kiev -> Kyiv" transition has occurred.

However, that would be more like "Prague -> Praha", or "Belgrade -> Beograd", or "Sofia -> Sofiya" transitions: i.e. a replacement of an old English word with a neologism.

Therefore, it would be correct to describe it as such. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

"...we probably can conclude that..." No, we (as in, the people discussing here) cannot conclude anything. This debate has already concluded in favour of changing usage from Kiev to Kyiv in non-historic circumstances as per Wikipedia policy regarding the transition in English usage. The discussion regarding this concluded back in September 2020. Your opinion on "replacements of old English words with neologisms" does not change policy or change consensus in a meaningful way (other than the one vote you can cast). If you insist on arguing this, you are more than welcome to open an RfC regarding the usage of Kyiv vs Kiev on Wikipedia. There's no more use in discussing this here, as the discussion here does not grant authority to undo existing consensus. Hecseur (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

In my post, we refers to the Wikipedia community that decided in 2020 (in my opinion, prematurely) that the article should be renamed. Due to my rl business, I didn't participate in that discussion, but I disagreed with that. Now I am seeing that the "Kiev -> Kyiv" transition is really occurring (although I would say that transition is still in progress), so if the next round of the renaming discussion will be initiated, I would probably support "Kyiv".

However, all of that doesn't change the fact that "Kiev" is the English word, and "Kyiv" was virtually not in use until recently (it was just a transliteration of the Ukrainian name, which occasionally appeared in English books).

Therefore,

• We should clearly discriminate between "transliteration" and "English words". I already explained the difference: "Belgrade" is an English name for Serbia/SFRYu, and "Beograd" is a transliteration of the Serbian word from Cyrillic to Latin. "Sofia" is an English name, "Sofiya" is a transliteration. "Moscow" is the English name of the Russian/Soviet capital, and "Moskva" is a transliteration from Cyrillic to Latin. As you probably know, English sources use the word Moskva for the ship sank in 2022, and that perfectly demonstrates the difference between transliteration and English words.

The only problem with "Kiev" is the fact that this English word coincides with a transliteration of the Russian word. However, English "Kiev" is the English word, not a transliteration.

• We cannot speak about "Kyiv" as a "standard transliteration. It is the transliteration of the Ukrainian name that is currently replacing "Kiev", which has been the English word for centuries.

Paul Siebert (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

On your first point: I'm curious on how you would apply this to the section. Please give an example on how you would rewrite the section to apply this.

On the second: You are correct that "Kiev" has been the standard in English for centuries, so perhaps "standard" is not the most intuitive way to describe it. Perhaps "modern" would fit better? Such that: Whilst the modern transliteration of the Ukrainian name of the city with special status also known as Kiev in the English language is Kyiv... Hecseur (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The Kiev spelling wasn’t standard until sometime in the first half of the twentieth century.[3]  —Michael Z. 18:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Well spotted. Hecseur (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Majority usage from 1912, standard from about 1941 to 1991.[4]  —Michael Z. 19:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Why did you change your initial word set (Kyiv,Kiou,Kiow,Kiovia,Kioff,Kiof,Kiew,Kief,Kieff)? If we return to your original word set + Kyiv, we get this.

Moreover, other forms (as I already explained) were derived either from Polish (Kiou,Kiow,Kiovia,Kioff,Kiof) or from Russian (Kiew,Kief,Kieff), and virtually no "Kyiv" was found in literature.

Therefore, the situation was as follows: before 1800, English sources were using mostly Polish derived versions of this name, which was not stable (several forms were used in parallel). After that, the forms derived from Russian started to dominate. After 1900, the word became stable, and it became an English word.

What is especially important, "Kyiv" was not used at all: we must concede that the transliteration of this name from Ukrainian is gradually substituting the English word "Kiev".

I reiterate: majority of English names of European capitals and historically important cities: Prague, Warsaw, Moscow, Belgrade, Sofia, Lisbon, Cologne, Munich, the Hague, Rome, Lisbon etc are English names, they differ from the original spelling. Usually that happens because these names came from some foreign language, e.g. Cologne came from French. That has nothing in common with "colonialism". If, for some reason, the process of substitution of "Cologne" with "Koln" occurred, that would be not a return of some "correct name", just an introduction of a neologism. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

...that would be not a return of some "correct name" This is not discussion on a "correct" name, but merely on what name would be appropriate for Wikipedia in various scenarios. This discussion once again does not seem beneficial to improving existing guidelines. @Paul Siebert: If you could please specify the exact changes you would like to make to the phrasing of the section so we could discuss them, as that discussion would have merit and will be beneficial to improving this information page. Hecseur (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

As I explained, the words:

""Whilst the standard transliteration of the Ukrainian name of the city with special status also known as Kiev in the English language is Kyiv"

imply that there is a common name "Kyiv", which is also known under the name "Kiev".

In reality, a correct description of the situation is:

""Whilst "Kiev" has been the standard English name of the Ukrainian capital, the transliteration of the Ukrainian name ("Kyiv") is becoming more predominant in English sources during the last year." Paul Siebert (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

"During the last year (or in 2022)" (actually, after Russia attacked Ukraine) is important, because, as Michael's search results demonstrate, "Kiev" was dominating even by 2020, when the article was renamed (I reiterate, that renaming was premature). Paul Siebert (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I will remind you once again that consensus was established back in September 2020, this is due to the fact that even by then reliable sources in English in the media have used Kyiv frequently and commonly, which is obviously not a change that is reflected by Google Ngram Viewer (another reminder that recent reliable media sources carry much more weight on name changes as per policy). Also using the words "during the last year" is probably not a good idea, considering these guidelines will live on for an extended period of time, and this is also not indicative of when consensus was decided, regardless of whether it was "premature". I'd also avoid the word "standard", as this discussion certainly shown that this word raises ambiguity. I'd suggest changing it more into something along the lines of: Whilst until recently Kiev has been the customary name of the city with special status, the modern transliteration of the Ukrainian name, namely Kyiv, has become more commonly used in English. "Kiev" was the longstanding title of Wikipedia's article on the subject. However, A move discussion closed on 16 September 2020 resulted in that article being moved to the title "Kyiv", following a documented shift in usage in English-language media. Hecseur (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

And I am reminding you that WP:CCC. I did not participate in the 2020 renaming discussion, and I have a feeling that my participation may have tipped the balance to "keep". By having said that, I agree that, because of the ongoing war, the balance is tipping to "Kyiv".

As I already noted in my previous post, I agree that "during the last year" is not a good wording, and that is why I added "in 2022".

I disagree with "which has become more commonly used in English". In reality, we are witnessing the transition that may occur (or not). I remember several examples when some new form became more predominant for a short period of time, but the situation quickly changed back.

We can claim that "Kyiv" has become more common only after several years, if this situation becomes stable. Therefore, "which is becoming more commonly used in English", would be more correct (although we have no unequivocal proof even for that soft statement: no ngram statistics is available for 2022-23 period yet). In connection to that, I would like to see what do you mean under "documented shift".

In addition, why so much emphasis is made on "media"? Per WP:V, magazines and newspapers are not the most reliable sources. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

You are correct consensus can change, but that would require an RfC to supersede the existing one. While I lament the fact you couldn't participate in the prior discussion, speculating about what could have been if you had is not a helpful arguement. WP:NAMECHANGES is the relevant policy on giving far more weight to recent reliable sources, most of which tend to be from media as a consequence of difference in time and effort required to publish compared to books or academic works. The discussion from 2020, which I have already linked to you multiple times, presented a plethora of reliable sources which began using "Kyiv" rather than "Kiev", mostly beginning in 2019. Since then there have passed 4 years and Kyiv is unequivocally used more in recent reliable English-language sources than Kiev.

I remember several examples when some new form became more predominant for a short period of time, but the situation quickly changed back. I doubt a case existed where there has been consensus on Wikipedia regarding a name change for 3 years, in which a name change was later unequivocally adopted by virtually all established and reliable English-language sources, and then usage suddenly and inexplicably reverted to the previous name. Regardles of this, anecdotal predictions on what might happen in the future are irrelevant, the fact of the matter is that the move abided policy and was supported by consensus. If the future requires us to change policy on this naming, we will. As of today there is no arguement to be raised regarding Kyiv being more commonly, if not almost exclusively used by reliable English sources, this is simply a fact.

As you've seen, I'm more than willing to make compromises in order to achieve a new, clearer phrasing for the existing consensus. If your interest isn't in a simple rephrasing, but rather in any change to the core meaning of the section then there is no merit to discussing here; You would need to make an RfC to discuss superseding existing consensus achived by the previous RfC. Hecseur (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

"I doubt a case existed where there has been consensus on Wikipedia regarding a name change for 3 years"

I mean not Wikipedia, but transitions in ngram trends.

"... this is simply a fact." Yes, but it is a very recent fact, and even today we cannot speak about a stable transition.

As you probably noticed, I started this section specifically to challenge one concrete sentence. I am glad you are ready to discuss it. Let's continue. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I, too, am glad to have a civil discussion regarding this. While I do agree we can't necessarily speak of a stable transition, there is no requirement by Wikipedia policy for such, just a proven transition. Should the accepted name in English ever transition back to "Kiev" or to a different name, policy would likely dictate a move in that direction just as well.

Lets return to discussing specific changes. Following is the draft change I introduced earlier. I am including only the first sentence as that is the only one I have changed, and is the focus of the discussion:

"Whilst until recently Kiev has been the customary name of the city with special status, the modern transliteration of the Ukrainian name, namely Kyiv, has become more commonly used in English."

I'm assuming your remaining issue with this phrasing is the part stating: "Kyiv...has become more commonly used in English." It is unclear whether this statement asserts that Kyiv is used in English more commonly than Kiev, or if Kyiv became more commonly used in English in general, though both are true at these recent times. While it may give further context to mention the stability of the change, I do find that mentioning this is rather difficult without it being read as shoehorned information (as the stability of the change isn't relevant to the name change policy). Even if you avoid simply shoehorning it in, I struggle to think of a phrasing that adds this information without it being unnecessarily awkward, which is much less than ideal.

I'm very curious to hear what specific phrasing you have in mind for this, as my mind is coming up blank. Hecseur (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I checked this and that, and I am not sure we can speaks about a transition that has already occurred. It seems it is obvious that we can claim the transition has occurred only after "Kyiv" become significantly more popular, and that popularity is stable (at least, during several years).

I propose:

""Whilst until recently "Kiev" has been the customary English name of the city with special status, the modern transliteration of the Ukrainian name, namely Kyiv, is becoming commonly used in English."

Paul Siebert (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"...has been the customary English name..." is a good and well spotted addition. However, I do find the phrasing "...is becoming commonly used in English." problematic, as it could be read as to imply that Kyiv is not yet commonly used in English, which is not true.

While we can't necessarily speak of a transition that has already occured according to every measurement, the transition has occured by enough measurements to meet the standards of Wikipedia policy. The Google Scholar links do show that Kyiv is more commonly used than Kiev in recent scholarly work, and if you take into account the fact that scholarly work is generally significantly less recent than standard published media on the web (as it takes more work to write and publish), it does support the transition being very extensive already.

I will be interested in other suggestions for phrasing. I still don't have an alternative to the existing "...has become more commonly used in English." However, I do personally find the existing phrasing suitable, although not necessarily ideal. Hecseur (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, what about "...has become more commonly used in English recently". That is really a very recent phenomenon. Thus, I noticed that even in 2022 "Kyiv" was recognized as a typo by our own Wikipedia text editor. That situation changed just few month ago. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a great way to put it. I'll go with "...has recently become more commonly used in English", since I find it better connects to the rest of the sentence. Otherwise I believe we are done here! I will update the page. Hecseur (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a pleasure to work with you. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Those old names of Kyiv are not from Polish.

A clear majority of European capitals, 34 out of 50, have English names identical to a native name or to a reasonable transliteration (35 if you accept that Riga = Rīga). (And comparing longtime state capitals to a city distant from English-speaking countries and directly colonized until 1991 doesn’t prove any principle.)  —Michael Z. 20:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

WRT "A clear majority...", I believe you excluded London and Dublin from that list, right? Furthermore, some capitals (like Berlin) are not the most historically important cities. Other capitals are spelled identically in their own language and in other European languages (or course, if we forget about diacritic symbols that are absent in a standard Latin alphabet). Thus, Riga has the same spelling in all major European languages (French, Italian, German), so it would be impossible to imagine a reason why the English word could be an exception.

With regard to your "directly colonized", this your position is a mixture of a weird primordialism and Soviet Marxist doctrine, and I refuse to discuss it anymore. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Your position on my position is one of the most ignorant things I’ve ever read about me.  —Michael Z. 04:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

See WP:DUCK. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean, if we count not capitals, but old and historically important cities (like Cologne, the Hague, Naples, etc) the ratio would be different. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

"Those old names of Kyiv are not from Polish" Really? The difference between Ukrainian, Polish and Russian pronunciation is that Ukrainians say "K y ee v", Poles say "K ee yo v, and Russians say "K ee ye ff".

Therefore, all forms ending with "f" or "ff" and containing penultimate "e" were influenced by Russian, and the forms that have the second "i", penultimate "jo"/"yo" etc, and last "w" are definitely derived from Polish. Which would be quite logical to expect taking into account cultural dominance of Poland during those times. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

You’re just speculating, based on your preconceptions.  —Michael Z. 04:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually the Polish version would be "K ee yu ff". In Polish ó is correctly pronounced [u], and when w is the final letter of a word it is pronounced [f] rather than [v]. Hecseur (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

You may be right, but it is not easy to check, because Polish words do not need transliteration. Maybe, some users who are proficient in Polish, e.g. User:Piotrus may comment.

Anyway, my major point is that the form "Kyiv" is virtually not found before late XX century, and all evidences support it. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Since I was pinged - I think Hecseur pronoucation sounds more "Polish" (uff, not ov). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Piotrus. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s not how Ukrainian Київ is pronounced, according to Kyiv#Name. A normal English reading out loud of Kiow, Kiew, or Kiou sounds quite like the Ukrainian pronunciation [ˈkɪjiu̯]. Many of those spellings are Latinized. Plokhy in the chapter of Frontline on the Radvila map tells us that Ruthenian nobles influenced the map with their local knowledge. They were literate in Ruthenian (Middle Ukrainian), Polish, and Latin. The map labels Kyiv “Kijouia” and “lacus antiquæ Kiovie.”

Siebert’s speculation and survey of one Polish speaker gives no insight into the etymology of these earlier English spellings.  —Michael Z. 04:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems you are beating a dead horse, but...

First, to make sure we are talking about the same things, here Ukrainian and Russian pronunciations are compared, and the difference is that in Ukrainian the first "k" sounds more hard, whereas in Russian is more soft. The second difference is that in Ukrainian the last vowel sounds like "yi", whereas in Russian it is like "ye". The last difference is that in Russian the last "v" transforms to "ff", whereas in Ukrainian it is voiced. Therefore, I can agree that "w" or "u" sounds closer to modern Ukrainian, but the rest is closer to modern Russian. Actually, we are speaking about the times when no clear separation on Ukrainian or Russian languages had occurred yet, and these emerging languages were even closer to each other then they currently are.

I suggest you to stop it. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

You’re telling us that these English spellings definitely are from Polish (sources?), but there was no separate Ukrainian at the time (sources?). At which time exactly was that?  —Michael Z. 05:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

No. I am not telling that. Frankly, I find this discussion senseless: in old East Slavic languages, phonetics was different from modern languages, and both in Kiev and Moscow a literary language was Old Church Slavonic.

My point is that before 1800, there was no stable form for Kiev. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

BTW, apparently, the form "Kief", which the mpst closely corresponds to the modern Russian pronunciation, seems to be one of the oldest forms found in literature. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

How old? What oldest sources does it appear in?  —Michael Z. 05:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Click at the link. However, I by no means am going to draw any far reaching conclusions from that. My point is that all theorising of that type are just a waste of our time. Let's stop it. Paul Siebert (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Paul Siebert’s submission is full of misinformation and bad original research. It totally ignores explanations that have been given above, and it’s a waste of time to continue to reply to the virtual monologue of this user who refuses to WP:hear. Things they insist on getting completely wrong:

• The meaning of “standard transliteration of the Ukrainian name”
• The false assertion that Kijow was ever common in English
• The false assertion that Kyiv, in use for a century, is a “neologism”
• The false assertion that Russian-derived Kiev, in use for about two, is an English exonym (it’s a transliteration of a Russian exonym, from a colonial language external to and imposed on Ukraine)
• The nonsense about people from certain countries having “authority” over certain words of special status (and the implied conclusion that only the English have authority over the specially designated by Paul Siebert name Kiev)
• The apples-and-oranges comparison of “English-speakers” vs “Ukrainians,” “Germans,” and “Russians”
• The bad OR used to set up an emotional argument: “why do me make an exception for the capital of Ukraine?”

Please don’t dignify this by responding seriously to it. It’s wrong “facts” and bad “logic” meant to denigrate a neutral POV and privilege an extremely prejudiced one.  —Michael Z. 13:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPA says: Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.

WP:NOR says: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.

Michael accused me of OR. As far as I remember, I already informed him that NOR is not applicable to talk pages or similar pages, and now I am formally notifying him about that, and I am expecting he will refrain from throwing accusations of OR during .

He also accused me of lying (posting misinformation). Let's check if these accusations have any ground.

• "The meaning of “standard transliteration of the Ukrainian name”" Transliteration " is a type of conversion of a text from one script to another". The Ukrainian name "Київ" is transliterated as "Kyiv". Does anybody disagrees with that?
• "The false assertion that Kijow was ever common in English" This "false assertion" was based on the ngram search made by Michael. Actually, before Michael provided these results, I didn't pay attention to other forms of the word "Kiev". Now I see that the forms derived from Polish "Kijów" (i.e. Kiou+Kiow+Kiovia+Kioff+Kiof) were prevalent before 1800, the forms derived from "Kiev" (Kiew+Kief+Kieff) started to prevail after that, and "Kyiv" was virtually not used at all [5].
• "The false assertion that Kyiv, in use for a century, is a “neologism”" As Michael's own ngram search show, "Kyiv" was very rarely found in English literature until recently, so it is definitely a neologism in English.
• "The false assertion that Russian-derived Kiev, in use for about two, is an English exonym (it’s a transliteration of a Russian exonym, from a colonial language external to and imposed on Ukraine)" First, these two statements are not mutually exclusive. Many exonyms are transliterations of some foreign words. Polish "nemcy" is not a transliteration, but English "Dutch", or English "Germany", or Finnish "Saxsa" are transliterations.

In addition, the assertion that Russian is "a colonial language external to and imposed on Ukraine" seems to be a manifestation of an extreme ethnic nationalism (which is inconsistent with the modern nation-state concept). If you look at that, you may see that this subject is being studied mostly by S. Velychenko, who argues that the idea of Ukraine as "Russian colony"was proposed by Soviet Marxists, and it is not considered seriously by other authors.

• "The nonsense about people from certain countries having “authority” over certain words". I think, it is obvious to any reasonable person that non-native speakers of some language cannot teach native speakers how to speak their mother tongue. That equally applicable to Ukrainians< Russians, Poles, etc.
• "The apples-and-oranges comparison of “English-speakers” vs “Ukrainians,” “Germans,” and “Russians”" I think it should be obvious to any reasonable persons that I meant "native English speakers". WRT the rest, see above.
• "The bad OR" - see WP:NOR.

In summary, the above post made by Michael is full of false or poorly substantiated claims, and it contains a blatant accusation of bad faith. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Please don’t make up things I never said and then conclude it was “blatant.” Your accusations against me are as badly structured as your earlier arguments. I don’t have time to point out every single leap, contradiction, and solecism in the above. The title of this talk section will have to do.  —Michael Z. 17:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

If you point me at the things that you believe have been "made up", and explain how have you came to this conclusion, I'll gladly cross it.

In my opinion, my posts are very well structured: I am disproving each your false statement one by one. Thus, you made a totally unsubstantiated claim that my assertion about Kijow was false. In response, I persuasively demonstrated, with diffs and links, that this my "false assertion" was based on your own ngram search: this search was initially made by you, and it was you who pointed my attention at the fact that not "Kiev", and not "Kyiv" were common before 1800 in English literature, but various forms derived from Polish "Kijów", as well as some variants of "Kiev" ((Kiew, Kief, Kieff). As you probably know, in Ukrainian (in contrast to Russian) the last voiced consonant is not devoiced, so the Russians pronounce, e.g. "Smirnov" like "Smirnoff", whereas the Ukrainians pronounce it like "Smirnou" (which is closer to Old Slavonic or Italian)..

In any event, instead of apologizing for throwing unsubstantiated false accusations, you throw more unsubstantiated allegations. Do you really want to continue this discussion at AE? Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac and Paul Siebert: Both of you seem to have forgotten WP:EQ. Please refrain from continuing this discussion. If you MUST continue it, you're more than welcome to do it at WP:ANI. Hecseur (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair.  —Michael Z. 14:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed the "cn" tag. Actually, I am not sure if I understand the status of this page: it seems it is neither a policy nor guidelines, does it mean it is just an essay? If that is correct, and it reflects a point of view of an unknown fraction of Wikipedians, that is probably ok.

However, do you know if NOR and V are applicable to essays? If yes, then the tag should be restored. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Banner at the top indicates it's an information page: "Informative and instructional pages are typically edited by the community; while not policies or guidelines themselves, they are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms. Where essay pages offer advice or opinions through viewpoints, information pages should supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Wikipedia impartially. In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, and can reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting."

In the case of this page, and more specifically in the case of the Kiev/Kyiv debate, there is a large consensus reflected; The specifc line that you are incessant about specifically notes the 16 archives worth of deliberating regarding this at Talk:Kyiv/naming. A single opinion is not enough to change this existing consensus, and if you do insist that there is a wrong being made here I highly suggest you read all of the relevant discussions before making wild assertions on existing cosensus. Further, WP:V states "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable.", which as defined by WP:MAINSPACE, does not include information pages, or WP: space pages in general. You will however find extensive citations of the factual claims made in this page in the discussions at Talk:Kyiv/naming, which again I must encourage you to read before further contribution to what is an established consensus. Hecseur (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation of settlements in same raion/hromada

The page does not mention how to disambiguate between settlements that are in the same raion but in different hromadas (e.g., there are two villages named Hannusivka in Oleksandriia Raion), or in same hromada but in different starosta okruhs (e.g., there are two villaged named Volodymyrivka in Domanivka settlement hromada). Actually, the page doesn't mention starosta okruhs at all. Shwabb1 (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Are there actual articles that exist (or about to exist) that require disambiguation? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

One example that I know of is the two Hrabove villages in Kovel Raion, Volyn Oblast - one in Serekhovychi rural hromada and another in Shatsk settlement hromada. I'm uncertain whether there are any other articles like these in English Wikipedia, but there are many examples in Ukrainian Wikipedia. Shwabb1 (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

There's two villages named Topoli in the same hromada. In that case we focus on their legal administrative status, one is a selo (village) while the other is a rural-type settlement. Thus we have Topoli (village), Kharkiv Oblast and Topoli (rural-type settlement). Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The naming conventions here have the potential to create some ridiculously long article names. The first principle of disambiguation is that we only disambiguate actual conflicts in article names. Hence, if there are five places in the world called A but only one has an article, no disambiguation should be applied. Secondly, disambiguation is not applied to a primary target but I will assumme that most of these places are obscure and there is no particular one in a set of localities sharing the same name that is particularly well known in English or might otherwise reasonably be given primacy. We should then disambiguate with the highest administrative division sufficient to achieve this. For three localities (A1, A2 and A3) if A1 is in oblast X but A2 and A3 are in oblast Y, Then we would name A1 as "A,X". We would distinguish A2 and A3 by their raions (eg M and N raions) giving titles "A,M" and "A,N". We can avoid using the administrative levels in the article title except if this is necessary for disambiguation (eg Donetsk for the city but Donetsk Oblast).

Considering the examples provided in the above responses: There are only two Wiki articles for Hrabove. I would title these as: Hrabove, Serekhovychi rural hromada, Volyn Oblast → Hrabove, Serekhovychi and Hrabove, Shatsk settlement hromada, Kovel Raion, Volyn Oblast → Hrabove, Shatsk. There are only two articles for Topoli on Wiki. Distinguishing these by their administrative status is an appropriate solution. I would title these as Topoli (village), Kharkiv Oblast → Topoli (village) and Topoli (rural-type settlement) → Topoli (rural settlement).

If these options dont work in a particular situation, we might disambiguate based on relative position within a raion - eg Hrabove, Serekhovychi rural hromada, Volyn Oblast could be Hrabove, eastern Kovel and Hrabove, Shatsk settlement hromada, Kovel Raion, Volyn Oblast could be Hrabove, western Kovel. Note that the positional descriptor is in lower case and does not imply an official name that Western Kovel might.

These are some thoughts that address potential improvement of the advice herein as well as the more specific question posed. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Serekhovychi, Shatsk, and Kovel are settlements - not the regions that they are the centers of. If using the administrative divisions rather than their centers:

Hrabove, Serekhovychi rural hromada, Volyn Oblast → Hrabove, Serekhovychi rural hromada or Hrabove, eastern Kovel Raion

Hrabove, Shatsk settlement hromada, Kovel Raion, Volyn Oblast → Hrabove, Shatsk settlement hromada or Hrabove, western Kovel Raion

With the hromadas, the titles may seem a bit long but they are shorter than the current titles, so it's an improvement. Shwabb1 (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the "Hrabove, Serekhovychi rural hromada" proposal - it makes it as short as possible, while still being precise and systematic. HappyWith (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Could somebody explain why (for the purpose of disambiguation) it is necessary to say Hrabove, Serekhovychi rural hromada rather than Hrabove, Serekhovychi or Hrabove, Shatsk settlement hromada rather than Hrabove, Shatsk? WP:AT would prefer concision over precision not necessary for disambiguation. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Serekhovychi and Shatsk are both settlements, not administrative divisions. Saying Hrabove, Serekhovychi is comparable to saying Orange, Sacaramento instead of Orange, California - Sacramento is the capital of California, just like Serekhovychi is the center of Serekhovychi rural hromada. If you want to shorten the titles even more, perhaps Hrabove, Serekhovychi hromada and Hrabove, Shatsk hromada could work. Shwabb1 (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but the analogy doesn't work. Hrabove is within Serekhovychi [hromada] and Hrabove is within Shatsk [hromada]. Orange [City], California is not within Sacaramento. It is not comparable. Orange, California distinguishes it from other cities called Orange in other US states but there is no other city/town called Orange in California. Similarly, Orange County, California distinguishes it from other counties in other US states called Orange but there is only one such county in California. States are the highest level descriptor sufficient to disambiguate cities in other states with the same name but we don't add state after the name of the state. Why should we add hromada in these instances? We add county to distinguish counties from cities with the same name but we do not also add city to the article title for the city. Indeed, why should we add raion or oblast to part of an article title here, unless it is a necessary part of the disambiguation in a way similar to county. In each case, we see that concision is being applied to disambigation of titles over unnecessary precision. So, my original question stands. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

You don't add state to the end of the states simply because most of them are not named after their capitals/centers (meaning that nobody will confuse the state with its capital), while most Ukrainian subdivisions are (Zhytomyr is a city, while Zhytomyr Oblast is a division; Berdychiv is a city, while Berdychiv Raion is a division; Andrushivka is a city, while Andrushivka urban hromada is a division).

"We add county to distinguish counties from cities with the same name" - just like we add hromada to distinguish hromada from the city (or, in this case, an urban-type settlement and a village). Shwabb1 (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

What I said was: Indeed, why should we add raion or oblast to part of an article title here, unless it is a necessary part of the disambiguation ... [emphasis added]. For the article title Berdychiv Raion, raion is a necessary part of the disambiguation to distinguish it from Berdychiv, the city. For Romanivka, Berdychiv Raion, raion is unnecessary in the same way that state is unnecessary detail/precision in Orange, California. While we add county to distinguish Orange County, California from the city, Orange, California, this is not the same as how we might use hromada in the examples - eg Hrabove, Shatsk hromada. There is no separate article for Hrabove, Shatsk that requires hromada for disambiguation. We should also appreciate that this thread is about disambiguating relatively obscure localities, where the primary target for Hrabove is a disambiguation page. While the guidance at WP:AT is to prefer concision over precision unnecessary to achieve disambiguation, it is perfectly reasonable to provide supplementary detail on a disambiguation page. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're trying to say now, but I still disagree - "Romanivka, Berdychiv" implies that Romanivka is a neighborhood of the city of Berdychiv. This is because the word "Berdychiv" on its own is generally interpreted as a noun (Бердичів), but in the phrase Berdychiv Raion, "Berdychiv" acts as an adjective (Бердичівський). English does not differentiate between the noun form and the adjective form, it all depends on whether the word oblast/raion/hromada is present. Shwabb1 (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

In the noun phrase Berdychiv Raion, Berdychiv is a proper noun and it modifies the common noun raion. In this case, where it acts like an adjective, it is called an attributive noun. However, Berdychiv as the proper noun for the raion can also be used to refer to the raion without being followed by the word raion. As an example, you will see many examples where Donetsk or Luhansk are used is sources to refer to the oblasts without being followed by the word oblast. An assertion that in English, a name like Berdychiv as a reference to the raion must be followed by the word raion (eg Berdychiv Raion) or, that Berdychiv alone only refers to the city would be incorrect. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any exact statistics on this, but I find it much more common for oblasts and raions to be referred to as what they are, not as their centers (on both the news and English Wikipedia). Visit any article on an oblast or a raion, and you will notice that. Shwabb1 (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, Wiki is not a source that we would use to establish such a thing. To the second, I have conducted a search of the explicit string (ie in quote makes) "fighting in Donetsk" on google news since the start of 2022 here with 3,290 results and for "fighting in Donetsk Oblast" here with only 10 results. Since there has been no fighting in the city since then, all reports for "fighting in Donetsk" are for fighting in the oblast generally and not the city. The premise is quite exploded (paraphrasing Oscar Wilde). Cinderella157 (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Huh, I guess that the news I'm reading happen to more commonly use Donetsk Oblast over Donetsk.

Either way, my point about the possible confusion with the city if hromada/raion/oblast is not added still stands. I can already imagine a situation: someone stumbles upon an article named "Romanivka, Berdychiv," wants to find out more about the administrative division that the city is located in, searches for "Berdychiv," and gets confused upon finding out that it is a city too. Adding one extra word to the title is not a big sacrifice for avoiding possible confusion. Shwabb1 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The argument is flawed because it is based on the premise that the hypothetical person doesn't even read the first and only line of the lead for the article on Romanivka in Berdychiv and that they don't follow the link therein. As I said below: Localities within the state of Washington are disambiguated by adding Washington after a comma, not Washington (state) and localities within the state a New York are similarly disambiguated. One should also consider WP:RECOGNIZABILITY: The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. With no other choice for a place called Romanivka associated with somewhere called Berdychiv, would such a person find this place with it using the title Romanivka, Berdychiv. This is the acid test that should be applied. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Romanivka, Berdychiv is recognizable enough, but it is not precise enough. As I said multiple times before, this title can and will cause confusion, and US states are in a completely different situation due to their names not being derived from their centers. And if we want to bring familiarity into this, asking the question "Will people from Romanivka or a nearby village recognize the English title (assuming that they have a decent level of English)?" - I would say that they will only recognize it from context but will be confused, as uk: Бердичів is a separate city while uk: Бердичівський район is the subdivision. Romanivka, Berdychiv Raion is the optimal option - it is not much longer than Romanivka, Berdychiv and leaves no room for confusion. Even if you prefer the name Romanivka, Berdychiv, when you type it in the Wikipedia search bar, it will suggest the article Romanivka, Berdychiv Raion.

And I did notice that we have drifted from the original topic, which was to resolve the issue of how to disambiguate between settlements that are in the same raion but in different hromadas. Shwabb1 (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The case of a location in the state of New York is directly equivalent to this situation. The case of a location in the state of Washington is pertinent because Washington most commonly refers to the city which is the capital of the US (not the state). It would arguably create the same type of confusion asserted to exist for the article title, Romanivka, Berdychiv. The search bar presently suggests Romanivka, Berdychiv Raion because that is how the article is presently named. If Romanivka, Berdychiv is sufficiently recognisable and precise to get a person to the article about Romanivka in Berdychiv (as opposed to the one in Mykolaiv), then it serves its purpose quite adequately. The question we are discussing in this sub thread is whether we should be adding descriptions (eg raion) to titles as a matter of course or only where necessary for disambiguation. While we may be using a simpler example, it is still in the context of resolving how to disambiguate between settlements that are in the same raion but in different hromadas. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The case of a location in the state of New York is directly equivalent to this situation

Not quite. It would be equivalent if the state was named New York State and the city was named New York, but both are named New York. In our case, Berdychiv Raion is rarely called Berdychiv.

I agree that Romanivka, Berdychiv is sufficiently recognisable, but it is not precise enough, as it could cause confusion. Shwabb1 (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

That's fully correct Cinderella. The issue in disamibiguating this way isn't that it's improper English, it's that in the context of a title it's ambiguous; The title could refer both to the city or to the administrative unit named after the city. This does not meet WP:PRECISION. Hecseur (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

There would appear to be some misconception of precision as a WP:CRITERIA which states: Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See Precision and disambiguation, below) [note the link]. WP:PRECISION is a link to the section on Precision and disambiguation, which are intricately related to each other. According to WP:PRECISION we should use the title Romanivka except that there are articles for other places called "Romanivka" apart from the one in Berdychiv. Hence we must disambiguate the title per WP:TITLEDAB: It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to the above-mentioned precision criterion, when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary [emphasis added]. Hence, concision is preferred over unnecessary precision to distinguish actual articles. There is only one article for "Romanivka" in Berdychiv. Romanivka, Berdychiv is sufficient precision to distinguish it from articles for other places called "Romanivka". It is immaterial to the guidance in respect to WP:PRECISION that [t]he title could [hypothetically] refer both to the city or to the administrative unit named after the city. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Your arguement hinges on interpreting "use only as much additional detail as necessary" such that the distinction in the article title between the city and the administrative unit is unnecessary. WP:PRECISION clearly states "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." The topical scope of this article is "a settlement called Romanivka in Berdychiv Raion". Using a scope such as "a settlement called Romanivka in Berdychiv" would be ambiguous as it can be incorrectly interpreted as "a settlement called Romanivka in the city of Berdychiv". Hecseur (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The shortcut WP:PRECISION is a link to the section Precision and disambiguation - not to the subsection within titled Precision. When linking to WP:PRECISION, the section Precision and disambiguation must be considered as a whole - as I have done. An argument that focusses on one part rather than the section as a whole is flawed. Localities within the state of Washington are disambiguated by adding Washington after a comma, not Washington (state) and localities within the state a New York are similarly disambiguated. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

My mistake regarding WP:PRECISION. It seems that WP:OVERPRECISION is supposed to redirect specifically to that section but currently does not, I will remedy this following my reply. My arguement was evidently focused on how the precision section defines the meaning of what is "necessary" as is later mentioned in the following disambiguation section; I don't comprehend how that "fails to consider [the section] as a whole". Your example of US localities is irrelevant; As per WP:USPLACE, sticking the word state every time a state is mentioned would be "contrary to general American usage". If the bulk of general use in English dropped the word "Raion" when referring to disambiguated localities then this could be a valid arguement. In the case of English-language coverage being lacking or nonexistent this could also be a valid arguement if it was the accepted norm in Ukrainian to drop "район" when disambiguating. However, neither of these is the case, and current consensus here reaffirms this.

As per WP:PLACEDAB: "Places are often disambiguated by the country in which they lie. If using the country name would still lead to ambiguity, use the name of a smaller administrative division (such as a state or province) instead." In the general use case when mentioning Ukrainian administrative subdivisions, the subdivision's name will be followed by the subdivision's type; Oblast, raion, or hromada (with some notable in-sentence use exceptions in English such as Donetsk). This is the accepted disambiguation structure I've seen throughout both official sources and vernacular use.

More importantly though, an additional remark for the Romanivka example: Without the subdivision type the title comes to the absurd situation where it can misdirect you both to both the city of Berdychiv AND to Berdychiv urban hromada instead of the intended Berdychiv Raion. This is not an "efficient" or "concise" method, this would all be nonstandard, very clearly ambiguous, and very confusing. Hecseur (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

As I have stated before, The link from precision at WP:CRITERIA links to the section Precision and disambiguation. The intent, therefore, is that the section should be considered as a whole in respect to the issue of precision, not just that sub-section on precision. The examples of Washington and New York are relevant because they are directly comparable to the situation being argued. It is not a case of sticking the word state every time a state is mentioned. It is the case that we do not add the word state. Similarly, nor should we add oblast (or raion) in a comparable situation. We should also recognise that this is EN Wiki not US Wiki but that is another issue. Allegorical evidence is little more than unsubstantiated personal opinion.

The assertion is that an oblast is consistently referred to with oblast as part of the noun phrase (and similar) in Ukrainian, because there aren't enough examples in English and that Donetsk is a notable exception. See here and here for another case that is quite exploded. At some point, these exception won't be all that notable. It is just a case of being clever enough to come up with appropriate search strings that can only refer to the oblast as a whole.

To the third para, my comment above already addresses this. More specifically, the title does not direct (or link) anyone anywhere. The links in the lead and the infobox do this. There is nothing ambiguous, and very confusing about this unless the links in the lead or infobox are inaccutate. There is no actual evidence that this would all be nonstandard English. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how any of this properly addresses my arguements. I am withdrawing myself from this discussion. Feel free to submit an RfC if you would like to change established disambiguation consensus regarding this. Hecseur (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

See here and here for another case that is quite exploded.

I do want to note - 6 of the 11 sources found for "fighting in Luhansk" include fighting in Luhansk Oblast, fighting in Luhansk region, and fighting in Luhansk and Donetsk/Kharkiv Oblasts. Only 5 out of the 11 sources referred to Luhansk Oblast simply as Luhansk. Shwabb1 (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The first search string "fighting in Luhansk" does not exclude "fighting in Luhansk oblast", the second search string. The premise addressed is that a reference to the region is consistently followed by oblast (etc) and a reference without this refers to a city. The evidence does not support the premise. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Zaporizhzhia is another (see here and [6]). Cinderella157 (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

This one could be influenced by the fact that even in Ukrainian, Zaporizhzhia Oblast is often called Zaporizhzhia, as the city's name comes from the historical region. Shwabb1 (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts about this: There was previously discussion on raion disambiguation here where I raised the point that disamibiguation solely by non-prevailing subdivisions is not going to be useful to the average reader when such subdivisions don't have adequate coverage to inform the reader. That arguement then was regarding disambiguation by raions; it even more acutely applies here, where instead of 2 line stubs there is ZERO information on nearly ALL hromadas on Wikipedia. If any settlements are disambiguated by hromada they will need to include all subdivisions required to make the title unambiguous:

• If all settlements by this name are found in the same raion, disambiguate only by hromada.
• If multiple settlements by this name are in the same raion and all settlements by this name are found in the same oblast, disambiguate by hromada and raion.
• If multiple settlements by this name are in the same raion and some settlements by this name are found in a different oblast, disambiguate by hromada and oblast.
• If multiple settlements by this name are in the same raion and some settlements by this name are found both in the same oblast and a different oblast, disambiguate by hromada, raion and oblast.

I completely agree with removing the hromada type when disambiguating as it's more WP:CONCISE. The name of the hromada is sufficient for disambiguation without specifying what type of hromada it is in the disambiguated article title.

For the Hrabove examples:

• Hrabove, Serekhovychi rural hromada, Volyn Oblast → Hrabove, Serekhovychi hromada, Volyn Oblast
• Hrabove, Shatsk settlement hromada, Kovel Raion, Volyn Oblast → Hrabove, Shatsk hromada, Volyn Oblast

In this specific case disambiguation by oblast is also necessary due to villages called Hrabove found in Donetsk and Odesa oblasts. Hecseur (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal, seems reasonable. Shwabb1 (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Should we make an RFC to officially decide on some of these changes? HappyWith (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Odesa/Odessa

I always thought the double-S version of this city's name came from its Greek version, viz. Οδησσός. At the least (1) I was unaware what the Russian spelling was, (2) I spell it with two Ss following the Greek example, not out of Russophilism, & (3) how Russian spells its proper nouns has less influence on English spelling than might otherwise be suspected: witness variant spellings for the novelist Dostoyevsky, Dostoevsky, Dostoevski, etc. -- llywrch (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It came to English from Russian. Одесса, Odessa, is Russian, not Greek (romanization of the Greek name of the Bulgarian city would be Odēssos or Odissos, I believe). I don’t know whether the Russian spelling has a double S only from its Greek etymology and strict transliteration, or retained it for some other quirk of spelling or pronunciation, but it doesn’t matter. The name of this city in Ukraine originates in Russian: Catherine II and her advisors were only inspired by the Odessos of antiquity, which we now know had been located at Varna, Bulgaria. Like most Russian settlements “founded” after annexation from the Crimean Khanate, the fortress there already had a Crimean Tatar name, Hacıbey, and was given a Greekish name to promote the myths of Russia as the eternal Third Rome and southern Ukraine as terra nullius, and to help overlook the ethnic cleansing of the Crimean Tatars.

Now we use the spelling from native Ukrainian instead of colonial Russian. No one is spelling Ukrainian names some way to show respect for self-determination of the Ancient Greeks.

Those Dosto--- spellings are all examples of transliteration directly from the Russian name Достоевский. The first may be according to the BGN/PCGN system with the -iy ending simplified, the second follows the widely used modified Library of Congress system which conventionally simplifies -iĭ to -y, and the third has the Polish-looking -ski rendering of -ский which is rare. Systematic spellings with simplified endings are most commonly used.[7] Since he was Russian, we don’t romanize his name from Ukrainian or Ancient Greek.  —Michael Z. 20:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Odessa took its name from the Greek colony of Odessos, according to Patricia Herlihy the name was changed to the feminine version at the special request of Empress Catherine, and one of the reasons for choosing the name was to attract Greek merchants. Your hunch that the double S comes from an ancient Greek name is correct as far as it goes. Marcelus (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Centralization re: decommunization of names

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith @Mzajac @Ymblanter I think these discussions should be more centralized and visible to the broader community. It's a stretch to claim precedent when there is no real wide participation. Even the Talk:Kadiivka RM from "Stakhanov" had relatively few participants compared to celebrated discussions like Gdansk/Danzig, (London)Derry, or even KyivNotKiev etc etc so

As for invocations of WP:UAPLACE, it took a very close perusal to see where the purported legalistic basis to support name changes lies. Rather than attempts at back-alley WikiHermeneutics, the common-sense approach is to seek wider consensus, and potentially an RfC, about what guidelines, if any, there should be regarding decommunized names in "temporarily occupied" areas.

Also, to be absolutely clear, WP:UAPLACE is not a policy or a guideline, but merely an information page.

Anyway, pinging @Slatersteven and @Cinderella157 as they have extensive track records of consensus-building, mediation, and stuff, with complementary and differing cognitive/methodological approaches to complex issues.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The thing is that we just had a common RM and it failed miserably. The conclusion was to renominate the localities separately, and this is what is happening now. What I am really disappointed with is that they are now being nominated one by one using exactly the same arguments, as if nothing was discussed before. Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Though it would be great to have more participants of course. Ymblanter (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

As the RM's are closed, I am unsure that it expected. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

No, there are about a dozen which are open. Ymblanter (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that some of them have actually been moved, and my arguments were completely ignored (not even reflected in the closure statements). Fine, I guess the best I can do it to move to a different topic area. This one became completely polluted by POV editors. Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hm, a quick search identified at least these 3 recent closures by 2 different editors:

• Talk:Piatypillia#Requested move 6 November 2023
• Talk:Sofiivka, Horlivka Raion, Donetsk Oblast#Requested move 4 November 2023
• Talk:Buran, Ukraine#Requested move 4 November 2023

Like in maybe 80% of all closures, both sides’ arguments were “ignored,” because closer only wrote the result: “moved.”

The exception has a closing summary written by a 3rd closer. In this case, Ymblanter commented objecting to the application of UAPLACE (but didn’t actually write “oppose”), and the summary referred to only COMMONNAME and not the fallback convention UAPLACE – perhaps it didn’t need to be considered for the decision at all.

• Talk:Lypske#Requested move 5 November 2023

IMO, Ymblanter’s complaint appears to be unfounded, given these RMs. If I missed any that tell a different story, please let us know.

Using negative labelling “polluted by POV editors” by a minority-POV editor, along with its implications, is unhelpful.  —Michael Z. 18:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for creating this discussion. I'm not very experienced at all with these kinds of large-scale RfCs (which is why I hadn’t created one myself) so I probably wont be participating in this that much, but this should be very useful. Regardless, I won’t create any more RMs on this topic until this discussion reaches consensus. HappyWith (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

we can't centralize RM's as each page will have unique issues. Each RM must be assessed on its own merits.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I recall being told quite recently that there is a broad consensus on these names.

Anyway, the recent RMs have passed based on consensus, guidelines including WP:WIAN, WP:PLACENAME, and WP:MODERNPLACENAME, and evidence from reliable sources. UAPLACE has not replaced them: in fact the RMs have reinforced the usefulness of UAPLACE as a predictor of consensus on place names in Ukraine (consensus-making will naturally decide whether these RMs are a precedent or not).

Counterarguments have been you can only rename something you control, which is just a rephrasing of “use Moscow’s name and not Kyiv’s (because might makes right)” – but either side of that argument is moot, because WP:OFFICIALNAME: naming is a broader agreement out of the control of either Bankova or the Kremlin. Article titling comes from the use of names in RS and editors’ consensus.

Blaming UAPLACE is a distraction. Core guidelines and consensus are handling these RMs perfectly adequately. A bunch of obscure villages under Moscow’s occupation are not likely to become a “celebrated” discussion that editors flock to.

But go ahead and challenge the closed RMs on procedural grounds and widely publicize the ones in progress. Whatever determines a broader consensus and satisfies the complaints is positive. If RS show changed usage next year, you’re welcome to file RMs to change back (as some vowed to do after the celebrated Kyiv RM).

Still want to file an RFC? Suit yourself. There’s no deadline.  —Michael Z. 17:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've been trying to get my head around the issue. I can see the multi-move at Talk:Kirovske, Donetsk Oblast#Requested move 25 October 2023 and an earlier discussion at the same page. There are multiple moves by HappyWith such as this move at Talk:Sverdlove#Requested move 12 November 2023. The proposition is to adopt the official Ukrainian name changed from a former name ca 2016. Per WP:MODERNPLACENAME, 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 circumstances are that these localities have little to no mention in English language sources since 2016 for either name based on Google searches or similar. However, WP:WIAN would have us consult a range of sources including gazetteers and geographical databases. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines would tell us when there is no English common name, the modern official name ... should be used. At multiple places, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) qualifies official name as local official name. Herein lies the nub of the issue when these places have not been controlled by Ukraine since before Ukraine proclaimed the changes of names and whether the Ukrainian government official name is the local official name. We could argue the legalities of official in respect to de jure v de facto but the adage is that possession is nine-tenths of the law. WP deals with such issues at arms length. We follow, we do not lead. Adopting the Ukrainian government name can be seen as endorsing the Ukrainian government and bolsterism for the Ukrainian cause. No matter what our personal opinions are, we should take every care to not only be apartisan but appear to be apartisan. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Have the gazetteers and like listed at WP:WIAN changed? If not, then we certainly should not. Until there is a clear good reason to change these names, we should be guided by there is WP:NODEADLINE. Because of the inherent POV issues relating to these article names, it probably is something to be resolved by RfC and broader community scrutiny regarding applying the local official name.

There are some other issues I see regarding WP:UAPLACE. This would be the tendency to quite long article titles when there may be no actual requirement (no real article title conflict) for a long but precise title. There is also an issue of capitalisation of terms for levels of political divisions (eg Luhansk Oblast) when such capitalisation of oblast is not supported by sources (see here). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the very good summary. I’ll add:

• In the case of recent moves in this category, although small in number, there had been recent sources named in WIAN which supported the move.
• RGW can cut either way: don’t take the title to mean that a position that may be morally correct cannot also be the one mandated by the guidelines. Editors’ ideas of right and wrong vary. IMO insisting that occupied status (that has nothing to do with guidelines) should determine the title, while the actual evidence, policies, and consensus should not, is textbook RGW if it is based on supposed “rightness.”

 —Michael Z. 15:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your statement about UAPLACE causing a tendency towards unnecessarily long article names, though I don't think that's actually in the infopage - it's just a standard editors have seemingly drifted towards over the years. Ex: if the name of a hromada is unique, I don't see why we have to list the name of the raion and oblast after it every time. This could theoretically get even more comically long-winded if there happen to be two settlements with the same name in the same hromada. HappyWith (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm guilty of this. I do agree there's actually not that much sense for it, still I think it is nice that Ukrainian localities use consistent names. This does require some discussion. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to explain my main argument here the way I see it: I think that when there is no WP:COMMONNAME, we should choose the name given to the settlement by the Ukrainian government.

This is because, while I think it's true that the DPR and LPR have refused to accept the changed names, there are not actually any WP:RS that I know of that cover this fact - it's only their own press releases. Some of these settlements are so obscure that I had to search really hard to even find references confirming that they were occupied. There aren't any RS - or even less-than reliable sources that I know of - where it says something like "The local separatist authorities still refer to Boikivske as Telmanove", for instance. Even since the start of the full-scale invasion in Feb 22, these settlements are so far behind the frontline that they've gotten no coverage from RS that mentions the Russian government names for them, etc. It's essentially original research to say that the de facto authorities, or the locals in the settlements, still use the communist names, even though it's probably true.

Another argument I've made before is that Wikipedia should follow the coverage style of RS. RS have recently shifted to preferring to use modern Ukrainian names, like Odesa instead of Odessa, and Dnipro instead of Dnieper, etc - and so we should follow their example. I apologize that I can't link some policy to support this argument, but I assume that must be a policy even though I don't know the specific shorthand. International organizations and non-news sources seem to especially like using decommunized names, like the OSCE and the ISW. The OSCE's usage may be because it's illegal to use the old names (although, I'm not sure how true this is? The Mariupol mayoral advisor uses "Telmanove" in this article [8] ) but I don't know if that actually matters to us at WP. I think, even if it's because of censorship, we can still interpret a usage standard in well-respected sources.

I think it also somewhat matters that, from 2016 to 2022, the occupiers were unrecognized separatists. I think this sets the Donbas settlements slightly apart from the Crimean ones - even though Russia is also an illegal occupier there, it's at least a real country. The L/DPR were unrecognized by every country in the world, including Russia. I think that "endorsing the Ukrainian POV" isn't really POV in that case, given how international media and the United Nations were (and are) also overwhelmingly on that side of the issue.

Like Michael said, UAPLACE isn't really an issue here - I think my argument still makes sense even without citing it.

Sorry for how rambly this was, I hope it makes sense. Like I said, I'm not experienced with these kinds of large-scale discussions, but I wanted to try to explain my personal reasonings here. HappyWith (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I apologize that I can't link some policy to support this argument I think WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Official names are propagated through electronic databases: most states maintain their own central one, and the UN, the US GNIS, and others draw on those. UN agencies and international organizations are among the first consumers, because they work with states and have policies on respecting states’ self-identification, and have the technical framework to consume these databases. Online mapping draws on them too.

“it's illegal to use the old names” – dubious: can you cite this? (Every country has policies that specify official names of places, but that doesn’t criminalize calling things something else.)

The occupiers were not “unrecognized separatists.” It was an open secret that they were Russian-controlled proxies, and much of the press was really bad for both-sidesing their identity. The MH17 trial legally established that this was an international conflict because they were under the overall control of Russia from at least mid May 2014, and the ICC (if I recall correctly) established that there was no civil conflict at the same time, therefore Russia was responsible for all of their war crimes. They were Russia under international law. And the 2022 Russian invasion and “annexation” put the nail in the coffin. The press practically never refers to the so-called DLNR, mostly no longer refers to “pro-Russian separatists,” but to territory “occupied by Russia before February 2022.” Academic sources concur. The timelines were different, but Russia “recognized” the proxies that it set up and controlled in both Crimea and in the Donbas, and then it annexed (or “annexed”) them both, and wrote these territories of Ukraine into its own constitution. The only difference is that the DLNR nominally had militias: they were commanded by Russian officers from practically the beginning. The “People’s Militia of the Donetsk People’s Republic” was also the 1st Army Corps of the 8th Combined Arms Army of the Russian Armed Forces, and the PMLNR was the 2AC of the 8CAA.  —Michael Z. 02:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I‘ve heard Ymblanter say it’s illegal, but I’m not sure how true it is either. I think this comes from a misinterpretation of the law? I think it’s illegal to glorify or deny communist+fascist atrocities, not to call settlements by their old names. HappyWith (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've participated in several of these RMs. I don't see a point in this discussion. There should be no convention or general rule, as I see it geographic-specific rules overcomplicate editing in a topic area and thus hinder improvement. We have enough Wikipedia policies to suit each RM that is started. I incite HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith to keep starting RMs if they think there's a strong case for it, I myself have voted against some of them when I deemed it necessary, so it's not because I blindly support applying Ukrainian government names whenever possible. Though I do believe some of them should have had more research behind before the decision of starting them was made.

Regarding Cinderella157's comments I disagree that there is room for interpretation as to what the official names of Russian-occupied settlements in Ukraine are. In Wikipedia we use de jure maps, all of these localities use maps of Ukraine and their infoboxes and articles state they're part of Ukraine. I think "official" is inherently connected to the de jure situation, exceptions being for example Stepanakert (there's a RM anyway) which used the separatist name because most English-language sources do so; many (likely most) of the occupied Ukrainian localities do not have a common English name. I think any alternative to using de jure as a fixed standard is quite arbitrary and problematic, should we move articles any time one of the two sides makes territorial advances? Should we leave the original title under which the article was created? By what policy is this supported?

Personally I don't think any useful conclusion will come out of this discussion, this wave of RMs will eventually fade away and the articles in which consensus for moving was found will be moved and those in which consensus was not found for moving will not be moved. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

There are about 40 settlements that I have on my list of articles that still use the pre-decommunized name as their title, so it would be convenient to establish consensus on this issue so I don't have to RM each one, but I agree that it's unlikely we're going to reach consensus here. I think I'll start working on research to submit another medium-sized multimove to try and clear out the least-controversial ones. HappyWith (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• WP:NCPLACE would tell us: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. The premise of these moves is that there is no WP:COMMONNAME. WP:WIAN would list GNIS as one source to consult to determine the widely accepted name, it is one source. Google and Apple maps are not listed and from what I have seen, theses are often in conflict for the subject articles. Google Maps has a record of questionable naming and names can be changed by user submission without reasonable editorial oversight. At WP:RSP, there is no consensus that it is generally reliable. As I said before, where WP:NCPLACE would defer to the official name where there is no WP:COMMONNAME, it also refers to the local official name at several places. It would state in the lead: ... we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. Fairly explicitly, it is telling us to ignore such arguments such as this is the de jure official name that we ought to use. WP:WIAN would state: For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed [emphasis added]. Just as a revolution etc can lead to a name change, it can also prevent a name change being adopted when subsequently being imposed from without. This BBC News article would report that the Ukrainian government would eventually impose the name changes in Crimea but only upon return of Crimea to Ukraine. Is it perhaps wishful thinking that the government can impose such changes in DPR and LPR controlled areas now annexed by Russia? As I observed above, possession is nine-tenths of the law. HappyWith reported: ... while I think it's true that the DPR and LPR have refused to accept the changed names, there are not actually any WP:RS that I know of that cover this fact - it's only their own press releases. I suggest that these reports fall to WP:ABOUTSELF and are reliable for reporting that the names within their control are not changing. Considering the prevailing WP:P&G (including WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:NODEADLINE), we probably should not be changing such article titles for localities which have not been controlled by the Ukrainian government since it passed laws to change their names. There may be some exceptions that tend to WP:COMMONNAME English language usage but these would be exceptional in this context. I would observe that there are probably passionate views here as to how these localities ought to be named but this is all the more reason to poll the consensus of the broader community. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Should we make an RFC then? Seems like this discussion has only involved the same five people that keep voting in the RMs. HappyWith (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  WIAN does say “maps (such as those from the National Geographic Society), whether printed or electronic.” I have cited Google and Apple as having full coverage, being regularly updated, and widely used map sources. Could also consult Bing Maps (part of MS Windows), MapQuest, and others in Category:Web Map Services, but those I checked were sufficient to demonstrate that the changed names are being adopted by RS.  —Michael Z. 19:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  (Everyone, please stop referring to “DPR and LNR controlled areas.” These are occupied by Russia and have been de-facto controlled by Russia for a decade, and Russia gave up its pretences over a year ago. If we are concerned with avoiding what someone or other thinks ought to be, then please let’s use the neutral language of current, reliable sources. I am glad to provide sources if there is doubt.)  —Michael Z. 19:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  To be plain, assertions that the “local official name” is the one imposed from the Moscow Kremlin look like OR to me, and need more backing than invoking the names of the so-called “DLNR.”  —Michael Z. 20:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's also worth mentioning that "local official names" are in my view hard to identify in areas controlled by a state in which this happens [9] [10]. Few civilians in occupied Ukraine would dare to use the Ukrainian government names in the public space but that does not mean there is some widely accepted name among the populace like the syntagma "local official name" could imply. we also avoid arguments about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called. this will also depend on the context. From an international and legal point of view Ukrainian government names are used, from a public point of view within the localities the old names are used, and from the popular and private point of view we can't reliably know. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Fairly explicitly, it is telling us to ignore such arguments such as this is the de jure official name that we ought to use. I believe this is Cinderella157's own personal interpretation of this vague set of words, above is my own interpretation. I think there's a margin for discussion and interpretation of these policies in the case of which a RfC may indeed be due. For modern sources, it is important to identify any recent watershed moments in the location's history (such as the fall of the Soviet Union for Eastern Europe, or other revolutions, invasions and nationality changes), and limit sources to those published after that watershed here I'd argue the policy was not written having in mind current (as in currently developing) events. Proof of this could be calling the fall of the USSR "recent". Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The “local official name” argument is also illogical. The supposed local official names used by Russia are Russian, not Ukrainian, because Ukrainian language is de facto banned and certainly not officially used. Recent moves have included: Proletarske → Piatypillia (where the “local official name” would be Russian Proletarskoye), Karlo-Marksove → Sofiivka, Horlivka Raion, Donetsk Oblast (Russian Karlo-Marksovo), and Enhelsove → Buran, Ukraine (Russian Engelsovo). The entreaty to respect local official names is not something even its proponents have been proposing or considering.  —Michael Z. 21:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I have listed some of the affected pages that I am aware of for which move requests have been made. Might others add to this list. We might also add other potentially affected localities. These would be localities for which the Ukrainian government legislated name changes in 2016, for which there are Wiki articles and which have not been controlled by the Ukrainian government since prior to the legislative change. These would also be localities in areas that were nominally controlled by the DPR/LPR, since the legislative changes are acknowledged to not affect Crimea. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• Talk:Kirovske, Donetsk Oblast#Requested move 25 October 2023 (multi-page move) - not moved
• Talk:Piatypillia#Requested move 6 November 2023 - moved
• Talk:Sofiivka, Horlivka Raion, Donetsk Oblast#Requested move 4 November 2023 - moved
• Talk:Buran, Ukraine#Requested move 4 November 2023 - moved
• Talk:Lypske#Requested move 5 November 2023 - moved
• Talk:Kholodne, Donetsk Raion, Donetsk Oblast#Requested move 12 November 2023 (and Voikovskyi → Kopani, Donetsk Raion, Donetsk Oblast) - moved

In addition to those I mentioned above, the supposed “local official names” are Russian Sverdlovo not Ukrainian Sverdlove, Voikovskii not Voikovskyi, and Krasnyi Oktiabr, but some would have it spelled Krasnyy Oktyabr. —Michael Z. 06:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Months later, it seems to me that there is a conflict between UAPLACE (an information-page essay) and NCPLACE (a guideline), so the former has to be clarified; that the UAPLACE "rule" hasn't been followed anyway; that the RM results are inconsistent, probably directly as a result of this conflict; and nothing's been done to resolve this. I would thus suggest that peeps most involved with this page propose a specific wording change to resolve the problem (or just do it WP:BOLDly and see if it sticks), leaning toward following WP:COMMONAME and NCCPLACE like everywhere else. This page should be saying how to apply the policy and the broader guideline to this specific-country context, not trying to defy them. After that and any other issues are resolved, this should be proposed at WP:VPPOL for promotion to {{Guideline}}. It really doesn't serve anyone's purposes to have this lingering around in an essay state. Either it's reparable and is advice that should be followed, or it is irreparable old junk that should be marked {{Historical}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)