Talk:Kyiv/Archive 5

First sentence states "Kiev (/ˈkiːɛf, -ɛv/ KEE-ef, -ev)[9] or Kyiv (Ukrainian: Київ, translit. Kyiv [ˈkɪjiu̯] (listen); Russian: Киев, translit. Kiyev [ˈkʲi(j)ɪf];", claiming that the transliteration is Kiyev, but presents no source. That is in fact not true, the established Russian transliteration of Киев is Kiev, which can be proved by clicking on practically any link or source in the Russian article, for instance http://merjevich.ru/album/kiev, or looking at road signs or any documents in Russia. Wikipedia should follow commonname policy, reliable sources and should not make OR to please some political or other interests. Linhart (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Per the transliteration guidelines used on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:RUS, a modification of the BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian) the Russian name Киев is correctly transliterated as "Kiyev". --Khajidha (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

This is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. It also says that it is used only when there is no widely accepted name, which is absolutely not the case with Kiev. I propose that you either change the text to "Киев, BGN/PCGN translit. Kiyev" or change the Kiyev to Kiev according to common and established transliterated name. Otherwise the text is misleading and POV-pushing. Linhart (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Portraying it as "just an essay" isn't correct, since WP:RUS has been around since 2005 and is used for virtually all transliteration here. And transliterating "Киев" as "Kiyev" isn't limited to just BGN/PCGN but is also done in other systems, as can be seen at Romanization of Russian. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not, this is the only system transliterating it like that. I now found out user Ymblanter changed the correct transliteration on 18 November 2017 without presenting any source. Until then the common established name Kiev was used.Linhart (talk) 15:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I did not edit the article on 18 November 2017.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Linhart: Check things better before blaming anyone for anything. Ymblanter didn't even edit the article on 18 November 2017, and most definitely didn't add the transliteration, since it was already there by then. The first transliteration was added by EricLewan on 3 March 2017, adding "Kijev" as transliteration from Russian (i.e. before then there was no transliteration at all), which was then changed to "Kiyev" by Maczkopeti on on 5 November 2017. And as for there being no other transliteration system using "ye" for "e" when it comes right after another vocal, it is also, according to Romanization of Russian, done in the official transliteration system for road signs in Russia (which would be of relevance here, since it's the name of a city...), and was also used in the 1997 system for transliterating names in Russian passports. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It is also a transliteration system accepted in Britain. In general, it is always better to use "Kiyev", because the English "Kiev" and the Russian "Kiev/Kiyev" are different words that sound differently.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I was using "guideline" in the general English usage sense, not the specific Wikipedia sense. Yes, it is true that we use this system of transliteration for names when there is no accepted English form. But, the point you are missing is that an "accepted English form" is, by definition, not a transliteration. Therefor, we cannot say that Киев transliterates to "Kiev". The form "Kiyev" is the transliteration that would be used if there were no accepted English name and is, thus, the appropriate form to put in the transliteration spot in the intro. --Khajidha (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, the only problem with the intro is that it links to the articles on the transcription of Ukrainian and Russian instead of to the description of the actual system used.--Khajidha (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, no universally accepted romanization systems currently exist. In different romanisation systems, it is either "Kiev" or "Kiyev", but the latter is phonetically more accurate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:, Sorrry, it was Tunyk, you reverted it and then Kiev was again removed on 28 November. My point is that Киев - Kiev was just fine from the beginning until late 2017, when someone decided it to remove it from the infobox. Tom, that is not true: https://media.lonelyplanet.com/news/production/2014/10/Cyrillic-signs.jpg and the passport standard you mentioned is obsolete. Yes, Kiyev would be used if there was no common established transliteration, but it is, it is Kiev. The BGN/PCGN is the only sistem using Kiyev, so change the link to BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian if you want to keep the current text. Everything else is POV. Now a random user would think that Киев transliterates to Kiyev, which this article suggests, but it is simply (in 99%) not true. Paul Siebert, yeah I know that, that is why I think the common transliteration should be used, not the one that "sounds better" that is OR. Linhart (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Linhart: I apparently didn't explain it well enough, but before the transliteration I mentioned in my post above was added in March of 2017 there was no transliteration at all of the Cyrillic name in the lead, neither the Russian one nor the Ukrainian one. That is it did not say Kiev then. And there hasn't been any such transliteration either since at least 2010, except for a brief period of edit-warring in 2012 when the transliteration alternated between Kiev and Kiyev, before being removed altogether again. I have of course not checked every edit all the way back to 2010, but I have made half a dozen or more random checks per year all the way back to 2010, and none of the pages I checked, except for that brief period in 2012, hade any transliteration at all of the Cyrillic names in the lead. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and the picture of a sign you posted a link to, do you have any proof for that being a roadsign in Russia? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

No, it is in Sierra Leone. Of course it is in Russia. https://www.lonelyplanet.com/news/2014/10/22/moscow-gets-transliterated-street-signs/ The (common) transliteration was in the infobox until 2017 when it was added to the lead as Kijev/Kiyev and then in November removed from the infobox. Linhart (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know which transliteration you refer to as "the common transliteration", but if you refer to "Kiev" it was not "in the lead until 2017" (and there wasn't any other transliteration either...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It was in the Infobox! There was no transliteration in the lead before 2017! The exact date is less relevant and I again appologise to Ymblanter.Linhart (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Linhart: Sheesh. You start a discussion about "Russian transliteration in the lead", we discuss transliteration in the lead, various claims of yours are proven wrong, and then you switch to discussing the infobox. This is beginning to look like just plain trolling. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

You were the one proven wrong, about road signs etc. I said that the transliteration in the lead is wrong, I explained that it was added in 2017 without presenting any source and that the correct transliteration was used in the infobox before that. From the start on I am arguing that someone has put a wrong (or at least not the common and established) transliteration in the lead. My only mistake was the name of the editor, because I am not familiar with the old revisions system, which is why I already apologised. Linhart (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. You insisted on there having been a long-standing transliteration to Kiev in the lead, and accused Ymblanter of having changed it to Kiyev, but were proven wrong on both points. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

So I wrote 18 instead of 28, geez, a horrible mistake. And I never claimed that there was a long-standing transliteration to Kiev in the lead, I claimed that the one currently in the lead is wrong and I tried to present an evidence, that a correct transliteration was used in the article for years. But instead of debating that, you focused on a formality, if I missed a date for one number, so I do not know who is beginning to look like trolling. You never admitted your mistakes, so it is getting pointless. Linhart (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Total BS. See my comment below. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Why do we need any transliteration when a phonetic transcription is available? What is the reason to provide a Russian name if Russian is not an official language in Ukraine? If Russian name is provided, why there is no Belorussian, Moldavian, Hungarian etc names? In my opinion, the first sentence of the article should be:

"Kiev (/ˈkiːɛf, -ɛv/ KEE-ef, -⁠ev) (Ukrainian: Київ, romanized: Kyiv [ˈkɪjiu̯] ^ⓘ is the capital and largest city of Ukraine, located in the north central part of the country on the Dnieper."

It sould be clear that "Kiev" is the English word, and "Kyiv" is a transliteration of the Ukrainian name. With regard to Russian "Kiev/Kiyev", who cares how other nations call the Ukrainian capital? Had Russian been a second official language in Ukraine, we would need to add that, but since it isn't, no Russian name should be in the lead. Moreover, as I already noted before, the whole problem with "Kiev/Kyiv" is not that the English "Kiev" differs from Ukrainian "Kyiv". The situation when the English name of some European city differs from its domestic name is normal: Prague - Praha, Warsaw - Warszawa, Moscow - Moskva, Belgrade - Beograd, Vienna - Wien, Lisbon - Lisboa, Rome - Roma, etc Nobody cares, but, for some reason, Ukrainian users (or the users who have close connection to Ukraine) are persistently attempting to replace the traditional English word with a transliteration of the Ukrainian word. Why? The only reasonable explanation is that the English word "Kiev" looks like one of two transliterations of the Russian word "Киев". Had the English name been, for example, "Кі́eu" (a transliterated Belorussian name), I am sure, that caused no objections. My conclusion is that the whole discussion is just a continuation of the Ukrainian-Russian conflict in the sphere of toponymy. However, since Wikipedia is not supposed to take sides in political disputes, I propose to change the opening statement as I showed above and close this dispute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the new lead sentence. I only have to add that Kyiv is not a domestic name as such (like Praha), it is (also) a domestic English variant of the name, it is used when Ukrainians are writing in English, so it is at the same time the commonly used Ukrainian transliteration of Київ and an English word used almost exclusively in Ukraine. Oh yes, I do not know if it is important (according to policies), but some two thirds of the city speaks Russian.Linhart (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

We add the Russian forms for this and many Ukrainian cities because Russophones make up a large percentage of Ukraine's population and because English speakers are still likely to encounter Russian forms for many of these names, especially if they are reading historical accounts from before about 2000. It's a courtesy to our readers since Russian is a significant language in Ukraine, both at the present time and historically. As an example, I was going to Ukraine in 2007 and would be working in Rivne. I couldn't find any information on the internet until a friend told me to search for "Rovno" instead. That's why we include the Russian forms following the Ukrainian ones. --Taivo (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Taivo, that sounds logically, but, since we definitely have a problem with some users who are not feeling comfortable with the fact than one (out of two) transliteration of the Russian "Киев" is identical to the English "Kiev", maybe, we should include both transliterations? Something like this:

"Kiev (/ˈkiːɛf, -ɛv/ KEE-ef, -⁠ev)^[1] (Ukrainian: Київ, romanized: Kyiv [ˈkɪjiu̯] ^ⓘ; Russian: Киев, romanized: Kiyev/Kiev [ˈkʲi(j)ɪf]) is the capital and largest city of Ukraine, located in the north central part of the country on the Dnieper."

I also don't think an Old Slav name is needed in the lead: noone speaks Old Slav now, and we have a separate section for the historical name.

I've just checked, other articles (except Riga) do not give old historical names for capitals in the first sentence of the lead. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Then include the correct transliteration, the one you will find in Russia. That will help our readers the most. Linhart (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Linhart, no one cares what you have to say anymore. Your false accusations against Ymbanter mean either 1) you are not paying enough attention to be a competent editor or 2) you do not care about truth. Either way, your participation here would not be desirable. --Khajidha (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Khajidha, I don't know if you are factually correct, but the style of your post is not appropriate: please, discuss contributions, not a contributor. It would be better if you rephrased it to make it less offensive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

You know I actually agree with this. Why would we have so much transliteration in the lead? It should say Kiev followed by its Ukrainian spelling and pronunciation and that's it. Further down under names it can go into more detail of Russian and Slavic origins and speech. This is why wikipedia guidelines tell us one or two names in the lead and if more, take it to the main body. This isn't quite the same as multiple names but the end result is the same...Messy. It clutters the lead badly and while I side with English Kiev, the rest should be moved. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

So, it seems that "for some reason, Ukrainian users (or the users who have close connection to Ukraine) are persistently attempting to replace the traditional English word with a transliteration of the Ukrainian word. Why? The only reasonable explanation is that the English word "Kiev" looks like one of two transliterations of the Russian word "Киев". Had the English name been, for example, "Кі́eu" (a transliterated Belorussian name), I am sure, that caused no objections. My conclusion is that the whole discussion is just a continuation of the Ukrainian-Russian conflict in the sphere of toponymy". If it is those Ukrainian nationalists whom George H. W, Bush condemned in his Chicken Kyiv speech (which redirects to Chicken Kiev speech) who are the only ones insisting on the English use of "Kyiv", then the U.S. State Department, European Union's English-language press releases, Lonely Planet, Miami Herald, Google Maps, Yahoo Maps, Bing Maps, etc, must be all run by Ukrainian nationalists since they're taking Ukraine's side in the sphere of toponomy.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Repeating the same silly arguments over and over again, like a parrot, isn't helping your case. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Roman Spinner, you seem to think that if five people in a room of a hundred stand up, then they have the majority opinion and we must listen to them. It doesn't matter how loudly the five shout and stamp their feet and demand that they are the most important voices in the room, the 95 still represent common English usage. Come back when the ratio of major English-language media using Kyiv has reached 50% instead of the current <10%. Then you'll have something of Wikipedia value to present. --Taivo (talk) 09:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

What helps my case is debunking the parroting of false premises and equivalencies, such as the insistence that when English speakers call the Ukrainian capital by its Russian name, Kiev, it is analogous to English speakers calling the Russian capital Moscow or the Polish capital Warsaw. That purported equivalency is based on a completely false premise — "Kiev" is not an English name — it is the capital's Russian name adopted into English, while "Moscow" and "Warsaw" are purely English names — no other language uses those names for the Russian and Polish capitals.

The notion that the English name for the Ukrainian capital is "Kiev", while the Russian names for it are "Kiyev", "Kee-yev" or any other transliteration form is another false premise. If that was the case, then the Ukrainian name for its capital would not be "Kyiv", but "kih-yeev" or "ky-yiv" or some other uncommon transliteration.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hypocrisy of the worst kind. You don't seem to have any problems with København being called by its German name in Ukraine, Копенга́ген, or Beijing still being called Пекі́н in Ukraine, only with Kiev being called by what you, erroneously, consider to be its Russian name in English. Do you really expect others here to take you seriously? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Roman Spinner, when some word looks totally identical in who different languages, that may be just a coincidence: for example, the English "gift" and the German "gift". Your example, "Moscow" and "Warsaw" is not working: following your logic, there are separate words in English for Polish, Russian, Czech, Italian, Austrian, Portugal capitals, but German or French capitals have no English names, and English speakers have to use German and French words, accordingly. Don't you find that illogical? Obviously, there is a different explanation for that apparent paradox: the words "Warsaw", "Rome", "Paris", "Berlin", "Prague", "Moscow" and "Kiev" are English words, however, the English words "Paris" and "Berlin" coincide with the French and German names, and the English word "Kiev" coincides with one (out of two) transcriptions of the Russian name.

This my claim is fully supported by English dictionaries: thus, Webster says "Kiev" is the English name of the city, and "Kyiv" is the Ukrainian name; it says nothing about borrowing the word from Russian.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You are missing the point, the English name Kiev is not said to be different from the Russian name because we transliterate the Russian one a certain way, it is different because English is not Russian. Kiev is an Engliah name because it has been used as such for centuries, its derivation is irrelevant. --Khajidha (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"Kiev" had its origin in Common East Slavic (centuries before there was either "Russian" or "Ukrainian" [or "Belarusian" or "Rusyn"]) and was borrowed into English sometime within the last two or three centuries. But saying that "Kiev" is not an English word is like saying that "baptize" is not an English word. So what if it's borrowed. About half of the English vocabulary is borrowed from some other language (including "Budapest", "Berlin", "Paris", etc.). These are all English words because they are common names in English. And on another note, here is the entry for "Kiev" in Webster's New Geographical Dictionary (1980), from long before any political motivation for either "Kiev" or "Kyiv" existed: "Kiev or Russ. Kiyev or Ukrainian Kiyiv..." And from the World Factbook (CIA, 1997-1998), "Capital: Kiev (Kyyiv)". --Taivo (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

And a couple more: Hammond Centennial World Atlas (1999), "Kiev", but "Kyyivska" as the oblast name; Rand McNally Deluxe Illustrated Atlas of the World (1991), "Kijev (Kiev)"; Rand McNally Portrait World Atlas (1998) "Kyïv (Kiev)". So there are many different transliterations of Ukraine's capital over the last 20 years: both from Russian and from Ukrainian. The notion that "Kiev" is the definitive Russian transliteration from 200 years ago is simply not based on fact. "Kiev" is an English name now (like "Berlin", "Paris", "Oslo", "Istanbul", etc.), no matter what its origin long before any of us, or anyone we ever knew, were born. --Taivo (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Taivo, even if there were some definite transliteration of the Russian word "Киев", that would not change the fact that the English word "Kiev" is the English word: thus the English "Berlin" is totally identical to the German "Berlin", but it is an English word, not a German one.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree. --Taivo (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, I am ending it, obviously I am not competent and my participation on Wikipedia is not desirable. I did not know you have to be unmistakable to edit Wikipedia. You must all be so great, never making a mistake in thousands of edits, always pressing the right key. PS: Oh, it was Ymblanter, actually I was right, I clicked the wrong key, it was the 28 November not 18 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiev&direction=next&oldid=812602642 So I expect an apology. Linhart (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Linhart: Even more BS from you. No, Ymblanter did not do what you accuse him of doing, neither on 28 November 2017 nor on any other date, as can be clearly seen by anyone who, unlike you, knows how to read page history and diffs (the link you provided only shows what the article looked like on that date, not who had done what...). So it is, once again, you who owe Ymblanter an apology, not the other way around. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment if there's an annoying amount of transliteration in the lead, consider the "solution" in David. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Why are all of those there? Seems like the modern English name and the ancient Hebrew are all that are needed. --Khajidha (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk:David#Introductory_note. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment so all these English-speaking countries use Kyiv. Make sure to tell them they all don't know own language. or maybe... it's actually Kyiv ? 91.124.250.6 (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

1. US Board on Geo. Names (BGN) - https://geonames.usgs.gov/

2. UK https://www.gov.uk/world/organisations/british-embassy-kyiv

3. AU Australia https://ukraine.embassy.gov.au/kyiv/home.html

4. CA canadainternational.gc.ca/ukraine/index.aspx?lang=eng - Kyiv

5. NZ New Zealand government portal https://safetravel.govt.nz/kyiv

6. IE dfa.ie/embassies/irish-embassies-abroad/europe/ukraine/ - Kyiv

7. IN Embassy of India, Ukraine eoiukraine.gov.in/index.php - also Kyiv

"All these English-speaking countries" do not use "Kyiv". Their governments do because they have to conduct diplomatic relations with Ukraine. The common people and media outlets, which represent not just a few politicians at the top, but 99.9999% of the country's English-speaking population, still use "Kiev". So your argument is baseless for Wikipedia's purposes, which rely on common English usage and not any government practices. --Taivo (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

so you mean Ukraine forced ALL these English speaking countries to dismiss English language principles and own heritage and all of them agreed as one?) haha. rudicilious) it's Kyiv and will be Kyiv. Russian paid wiki editors and troll brigades can only postpone it from happening. but it it will happen and the change is irreversible. Слава Україні — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.124.250.6 (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It is standard diplomatic protocol to use the city names requested by the host coumtry. But you seem to have missed the fact that the US government lists Kiev as conventional. You know, "conventional", as in "what is normally done".--Khajidha (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, English usage is not set by governments. English is not a regulated language. When writing in English, most style guides actually recommend NOT following government usage.--Khajidha (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hahah, protocol?))) You Russians are funny. Really, only svinosobaki can think that government (of 7 different countries) can change own language policies (whaaaat?) due to request. seems like KGB needs better editors now) 91.124.250.6 (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Your comments about "language policy" are nonsensical. In the United States (and probably in those other countries) it is simply diplomatic protocol to ask what names a country wishes to have itself and its capital referred to as and for diplomatic personnel to use those forms. So they aren't "changing" their language policies, they are following them. However, such government usage is only binding on the diplomatic service and any other government agencies that choose to follow that usage. The US government cannot even force all of its agencies to use Kyiv and most assuredly would be completely ignored and laughed at as delusional if they tried to mandate such usage by the general public.

Can someone check this IP? I think it is banned user User:SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava. --Khajidha (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It's clearly a troll (the IP address is from Lvivska Oblast) and probably a sockpuppet of someone. User:SlavaUkrainiGeroyamSlava though had an IP from Kyiv. --Taivo (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

A reference to the article about BBC using Kiev pronunciation leads to Not Found. The fact can be checked by doing a simple search: https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=kyiv. --Leonv42 (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. --Taivo (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Moved to the proper venue: Talk:Kiev/naming#Requested move 9 July 2019 - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kiev/naming which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

A protected redirect, Kyiv, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added and the removal of the "Protected redirects" category. Please modify it as follows:

• from this:

#REDIRECT [[Kiev]]
[[Category:Protected redirects]]

• to this:

#REDIRECT [[Kiev]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from move}}
{{R from alternative spelling}}
{{R printworthy}}
}}

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  10:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done — xaosflux ^Talk 13:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much, xaosflux! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  01:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

A protected redirect, Kiev, Ukraine, needs redirect category (rcat) templates removed and added. Please modify it as follows:

• from this:

#REDIRECT [[Kiev]]
{{Redirect category shell|{{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}}}

• to this:

#REDIRECT [[Kiev]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from move}}
{{R from more specific geographic name}}
{{R printworthy}}
}}

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  10:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done — xaosflux ^Talk 13:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, xaosflux! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  01:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

"Following World War II, the city was almost completely ruined" - it's not true. Was ruined just one side of Khreschatyk street, a part of Lavra monastery (just one church) and some suburban industrial and military areas (like Shulyavka, Darnitsa etc.). Flinn (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Flinn:, I agree with that. I think you should just go ahead and edit the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thank you. But I am Ukrainian and my English is not good. I have a work in uk.wiki :))) Flinn (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

On the first line of the article, please change "most populous" to "largest" city. TheNamelessIndividual (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  Not done. "Largest" is ambiguous with respect to population vs. area, while "most populous" is unambiguous. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems that User:Chrzwzcz wants to turn this page into a personal forum where he can argue for the move and accumulate data without restriction and without dissenting discussion while the rest of us observe a moratorium on discussions of Kiev>Kyiv. If that is indeed his intent, then the moratorium is a dead issue. I doubt that any opponents of the move will want to let Chrzwzcz push his point of view without dissenting voices. If I have misinterpreted Chrzwzcz's intent (which seems pretty clear above), then please correct me. But until Chrzwzcz changes his intent to turn this page into his personal POV pushing page or there is support for a moratorium with teeth, I will no longer try to facilitate this effort. It seems that the interminable arguments will continue. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You misinterpreted it and twisted my "motives" drastically. And now you can delete this section.Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

How is it bad to sum up all evidence what was already mentioned and did not suffice? To stop repetition. How is it bad to show, that new evidence is also worthless, because we have moratorium. Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

"Summing up evidence" is nothing more than presenting to visitors to this page a section that says "Here is the evidence for the move" in violation of the moratorium. The moratorium is to limit all discussions of whether this page should be "Kiev" or "Kyiv". If you have your "evidence" listed on this page, and you continue to add to that "evidence", that is nothing more than a discussion of the move and your argument for the move. Just because you label it something else doesn't make it something else. It is a discussion of the proposed move. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Postponed discussion to RM. Postponed. Well aranged list of sources that did not suffice in the past, and list of new sources, that maybe will suffice next time. There's no devil's motives. Just clear, quick list, to avoid repetition, to avoid repetition, to avoid repetition. You haven't see in these discussions anybody who brings new definitive source - And you have to tell him/her - "nothing new, we heard this year ago"? No? Now you would have a list: This WAS considered, nothing new. This was not considered, but it will be next time when moratorium ends and someone will do new RM. (When we have discussion about "alterior" motives, heres mine:) Sometimes I suspect you all love to discuss this, because how many times you posted the same response which could have been avoided by my proposed "list of already heard arguments". Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

And if you start listing your "evidence", do we get to object to pieces or offer counter-evidence so that your list isn't prejudicial? How does that make it any different than a move discussion in violation of the moratorium? If you get to have your "evidence" here, then so do your opponents. Then we're right back to where we are right now--sick and tired of the constant pushing for a move based on millimeters of change. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

All of which is covered by saying "see the NUMEROUS discussions above. We will not consider any move until <date>". --Khajidha (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) And User:Chrzwzcz, you still don't get the point. The point is that there will be no discussions or "added evidence" during the moratorium. That includes you continuing to add "evidence" throughout the moratorium. A moratorium on discussion is a halt on any activity related to a move request on this page (no one cares what you keep track of on your own talk page or sandbox). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

To avoid repetition, to avoid repetition, to avoid repetition. Counter-evidence, evidence, you may call it "commented list of evidence". To consider move is forbidden, fine. To prepare for next (eventual) consideration is evidently also denied. Why are you so against simple list of already heard arguments? Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Because that's just repeating the arguments. --Khajidha (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

And, as I said, preparing for future discussions is something you should do in your sandbox. --Khajidha (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, you think that your moratorium will stop people to bring new evidence into discussion? Do you really think you won't hear any new evidence here in next (x) months? That you will be protected from this topic to evaluate it with fresh eyes in (x) months? It did not stop in the past, try it again and again and again. OR, hear me ot, you can dedicate one thread for that think I said, and it may change. Or your thing will work this time around magically. Now, just now, when more and more evidence occurs and more and more people will be eager to contribute. New people. Well, I wanted to help, I don't think I am unreasonable here, you want to try the same thing which failed so many times before. Is your "let's not pile all supporting evidence together to one short list to give someone wrong ideas" really the reasonable way? Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you read these? Why should my personal sandbox be dedicated for preparation for future discussion? How would those random future supporters know, that specially MY personal sandbox is Wikipedia's central point for that? My sandbox, when I am not THE supporter, I just call for open mind, pros (and cons) list! Chrzwzcz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Who said anything about others seeing your sandbox? I said that if YOU (singular, the user Chrzwzcz) want such a list, then YOU (singular, the user Chzrwzcz) should make those notes in your sandbox. --Khajidha (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A moratorium has never been tried in the past. The thing that a moratorium will do is this: A new editor shows up thinking they've just invented sliced bread. They post. Whatever editor sees the post first simply closes it with a note to look at the top of the page to the moratorium. No debate, no argument, no evaluation of evidence. Then if the editor pursues the matter or edit wars, there are other administrative actions that can be done. That is all new and has not been tried on this page before. If a new editor has a piece of "evidence" that you haven't seen, then copy and paste it to your sandbox. The point of the moratorium is to not debate in any way--that includes a list of "evidence", either pro or con. If you want to organize the "evidence", organize to your heart's content. Just don't do it here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want new editors to see your collection, we might even agree to put a link to your sandbox in the moratorium notice. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Or you can politely guide them with link to list of already invented things, like that sliced bread of yours. Ah, we don't keep such list of invented things, and we are not willing to (POV pushing or whatnot), we rather repeat and repeat and repeat. So repeat you will, mark my words :) Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) If other editors come along occasionally, that's one thing. What you propose is to systematically abuse the fact that we intend to close (rather than delete) proposals so that you can use the talk page as a gathering point for "evidence" that you intend to use for a future RM. In doing so, you effectively porpose to attempt to nullify the moratorium entirely.

That would be gaming the system.

If you wish to collect your own evidence, put it in your own sandbox. If other people want to collect their own evidence, then they can put it in their own sandboxes. "How would those random future supporters know"? Do they need to? The RM is not supposed to be based on a pre-prepared campaign of handpicked editors. That would also be gaming the system.

We're supposed to be coming in as disinterested editors aiming for the best result for Wikipedia. You can collect evidence in your sandbox if you feel you need to. Other people can collect any evidence that they feel they need, in their own sandboxes. And if and when a future RM comes up we can discuss it then. Kahastok talk 21:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

What is naming subpage for? Discussing the name. Evaluate previous evidence, make a neat short list, so that new people do not repeat the same argument/mistake and opposers do not have to repeat the same counterargument again and again. I am amazed how simple pros-cons list can be dismissed as harming for wikipedia. New people will see it as lacking common sense, silencing the reason, winning for long term bureaucrats, I am telling you that. As I said, you think this system will work, I don't. I was willing to give the supporters a platform (thread on naming subpage) where they can semi-quietly wait and gather evidence -- you are afraid that cooperated effort and exchange of experience is a preprepared campaign and it should not be allowed, people should do their reaearch solo, no cooperation (or let's say whispering) is allowed in case of moratorium. Other pages do not have dedicated naming subpage, so I can see here some differences what moratorium could mean. No RMs, fine. No preparing for the next one on dedicated subpage - why the #@%& not? You opposers wold know what to be prepared for, at least it is transparent ;) Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Or at the very least: to make a list of already heard arguments now and freeze it for the duration of the moratorium. I won't, you can see my English :P Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like your aim is to try and organise your formations on a WP:BATTLEGROUND. This is not supposed to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND with two entrenched sides. This is supposed to be all of us trying, together, to reach the right conclusion based on policy.

And that is far more likely to happen if the editors in question haven't spent the previous eight months dealing with the same arguments based on the same sources and from the same editors with only minor or incremental change every time. Which if you get your way is what will have happened, because you cannot expect that people will let you get away with systematically gaming the moratorium without response.

I do not know what position I will take in any putative future RM, because that will depend on the position at the time.

The whole point of a moratorium is that we don't have these discussions, to prevent disruption caused to this article by incessant naming debates. If you were to insist on trying to subvert that intention, on gaming the moratorium such that you can continue the disprution to the article, then I think it would be fair for the community to decide to take appropriate action to prevent you from doing so.

If people want to review previous discussions, then they are best advised to review the archives, which are prominently placed at the top of this talk page. This will give far better context than some kind of "list of already heard arguments" which could never be complete. Kahastok talk 23:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

"What is naming subpage for? Discussing the name." Yes, and this moratorium means that we are not discussing it until it ends. This page should go quiet until the moratorium is up. --Khajidha (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Battleground? Nonsense. Simple list of already heard arguments. Period. Do it now and freeze it during moratorium. Is it sooo bad? Do you relly expect new people would read all this text without substance? This wikipedia rules and bickering? You really don't have any empathy for newcomers, you do not indeed. I wanted to help, you know better, you enjoy it. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

"Do you really expect new people would read all this text?" Yes. That's the way it works. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Taivo, that is how it supposed to work. However, many users prefer not to read all of that (which is quite undertsandable, because discussions are long and confusing, and good arguments are diluted with various garbage), so

I think the solution could include the following steps:

1. To summarize the most important arguments supporting the move;
2. To summarize the most important arguments against the move (which are currently more convincing);
3. When a consensus about a duration of the moratorium is achieved, put a message about that on the talk page's top, AND supplement it with a summary of these pro et contra.

I see no reason why cannot we do that. Moreover, that will bring everything in system, and will help to avoid repetitions in future discussions. The only requirement is that the summary of arguments should be brief.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Paul gets it. Others present only possibility for newcomers - to read lengthy discussions like this one thread about nothing, nothing. It can be summarized very briefly "opposers don't want summarizations, because reasons... WP: This and WP: made-up and WP: Bureaucracy prevails". Something so simple like quick list of previously mentioned argumentation is WP: Crime against humanity. Enjoy your misused rules. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if the source was already cited, if so I beg all you pardon: "Is It Time For The West To Stop Calling It 'Kiev' And Start Calling It 'Kyiv'?". I have a question: is it a complete resume of the arguments in support and against the proposed RM ? If so, it could be a suggested reading for all next RMs. Peace to all. --Robertiki (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

That's actually a good starting point and is a better introduction to the post-moratorium discussions for new participants than User:Chrzwzcz's proposed unprocessed accumulation of arguments. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It was something else but I don't care anymore. I am outnumbered so no need to further explain myself although misunderstood. Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

POLL RESULTS (as of 9 Nov)

• 1 February 2020 (3 mo): User:Robertiki
• 1 April 2020 (5 mo): User:Chrzwzcz, User:DavidK93
• 1 July 2020 (8 mo): User:TaivoLinguist, User:Fyunck(click), User:Roman Spinner, User:Kahastok
• 1 November 2020 (12 mo): User:Serial Number 54129, User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång, User:Necrothesp, User:Khajidha

• 9 months (poetically until 24 August 2020). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

(I get the feeling that no one knows the significance of 24 August to Ukraine.) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably not. But I'd say that I've generally found that timing these discussions to coincide with significant days - even accidentally - is a poor idea. You get more attention, but not necessarily the attention you want (which is from disinterested editors experienced with - in this case - article naming issues on Wikipedia). Kahastok talk 20:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I had ... well ... some relation to the appearance of this date as significant--Ymblanter (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC).

Yes, that was only a half-serious proposal. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• 12 months (with no poetry!) ——SN54129 13:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• 12 months Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• July 1st, 2020 - mid-year seems like a good place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Are we voting ? That's not the way Wikipedia is supposed to reach consensus. Would someone summarize the reasons not to accept a foreign nation ruling changing its capital name ? Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, i.e. should teach. Thanks to the redirects, English speaking user will always find the correct page, and opening it, they will learn that the world has changed. As happened to me, time ago, searching for Birmania. If the page hadn't titled Myanmar, perhaps I would not have fully understood the change. I hope the most agree that the requested change is inevitable, and will happen in the future, so why not stop all that tiresome debating, and make the change now ? It strikes me that both rulings, that of Kyiv and that of Mumbai, were made in 1995. But while Mumbai is already accepted since 2001, Kyiv not. Why ? --Robertiki (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing you have said here is remotely new. We have fourteen pages of archives on the naming question, plus eleven previous failed RMs and a current RM in which most editors have opposed a move. All of these you can easily see from the links at the top of the page. If, after reading all of that, you're still not sure what the objections to renaming are, then our repeating them won't help. And avoiding being expected to repeat these points over and over is one of the reasons why the moratorium should not be limited to RMs in my view. Kahastok talk 20:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

To garner some insight on the issue, I perused what looks similar, the Myanmar discussion. And a doubt comes to me: is the Kyiv question of political nature ? --Robertiki (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

In other words, you refuse to garner any insight on this issue because you're not reading the archives here at Kiev, but the archives in a completely unrelated situation. Read WP:OTHERSTUFF, too, while you're busy ignoring the issues here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems so, we are told that the government of Ukraine favor this spelling in English. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC

• I said 6 months originally as a balance between allowing that things may change over the course of a few months and giving enough time so that editors reevaluate based on any new evidence in the meantime. I would not object to a longer moratorium. However, I maintain that it should apply to all naming discussions, not just RMs. Kahastok talk 20:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
• July 1st, 2020 per Fyunck(click). The section header for this WP:RM is "Requested move 26 October 2019" and it will close in early November. If the sole RM on this subject scheduled for 2020 occurs on July 1, it would be eight months after this RM. Taivo's appropriately poetic suggestion of starting the next RM on the 29th Ukrainian Independence Day (August 24, 2020), ten months after this RM, might actually be my first choice, but ultimately, the earlier the better.

The proposed 12-month moratorium would extend the wait for the next RM to November 1, 2020, which feels somewhat too long. Hopefully the 2020 RM will be the final one, with the nomination passing but, realistically, we will likely need another one, some eight or nine months later, on March 1 or April 1, 2021. Again, the hope is that 2021 would settle the matter and there should be normally only one RM in a calendar year, but fast-breaking events will inform whether we may need two in 2022 — one in January and one in September. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I can certainly endorse 01 JUL 2020 as well as User:Roman Spinner's suggestion of one per year. I agree that 2021 might be the year. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Or it could be 2025. It'll happen when it happens at this encyclopedia. It won't change personal usage of anyone here... heck I agreed with a Wikipedia change to Myanmar even though I'll probably always use Burma myself. But when the majority is convinced of Kyiv over Kiev, it'll just suddenly happen here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Digressing, I opened Google Maps, selected as english speaking, and there they are: Austria capital is Vienna (Wien), Italy capital is Rome (Roma) and Ukraine capital is ... Kyiv. So, an english user finds Kyiv on the map and ... what city is it ? Only kidding ... I am happy with Rome and Vienna, but if so many feel that it should be Kyiv, why not ? Is that really so important for not Ukrainian (and not English ?) editors ? --Robertiki (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Stop arguing about moving the article now. That question was already decided in the failure of the RM just a bit higher on this page. If you continue to push a move now, some admin might decide that you need a block on your editing privileges to get the message. The majority of editors also agreed to a moratorium on Requests for Move and we are now discussing how long that moratorium should be. Either participate productively in the discussion at hand ("How long?") or move on and edit elsewhere until the moratorium is over and you can talk about your favorite topic again at that time. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I was not arguing a move, just asking a question. RM is closed. I'm curious (and somehow offended) why I am harassed for the second time. Be polite, please. No need to threaten. --Robertiki (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You were not "just asking a question", at least not without pushing your agenda to derail the moratorium. The previous thread was about whether or not to implement a moratorium. This thread is about how long to make the moratorium that most editors in the previous thread (on both sides of the "Kiev/Kyiv" issue) agreed would be best. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I already explained that Wikipedia is about consensus and not voting. So you may have one hundred editor asking a moratorium, but no one arguing a different reason, without success. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The reason the move request has failed is not because "that most editors" did not like it, because the "most editors" have exposed a identical reasoning. But because after the elapsed days, no consensus has been reached. I suggest you read what consensus is. As you see, it is not about "voting". If you are interested on my suggested time for a moratorium, it is 3 months, as suggested in the rules we have agreed. This is not a special case as you state. --Robertiki (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

While I realise you're going to ignore everything I say (as you have with everyone in this discussion), I think it's worth reminding everyone else reading this that the closer did not find that "no consensus has been reached". The closer found that there is a "strong consensus" against moving.

There comes a point where Wikipedia is not well-served by repeating the same discussion over and over again for ever, and we reached that point a long time ago. If it will not stop on its own, it must be stopped. I think it is useful to solidify my position here and endorse one of the options that people have chosen, and my choice would be 1 July 2020. Kahastok talk 21:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• April 1st, 2020 (quick check) / July 1st, 2020 (if April 1st check brings nothing new): At current speed it looks like Kiev won't live through winter. Maybe it won't maybe it will... But let's check after winter. I find it strange to propose longer moratorium than before just now - Now when things really has started to accelerate. Chrzwzcz (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  Note that the article will only be moved if/when it is shown that Kyiv is clearly the main usage in English, not when Kiev and Kyiv are used roughly equally.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  "Main usage" is one angle, another is "newer is better, newer clearly showed its potential by equalling the old one, and all cool kids are using the newer one" :). Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

That might be another angle, but it isn't the standard required. Kahastok talk 15:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

"Main usage" is the standard, not "new and improved". Only when prevailing usage is "Kyiv" will the article be moved. Trajectory doesn't count. That's why 01 JUL 2020 or later is the date that most here are considering. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Kiev is declining, Kyiv is rising, when they intersect in usage... Tell me who is winning then. Anyway I proposed to do quick check on April 1, it does not dispute anything of this! Quick peek, quick reevaluation, predetermined possible exit point to make an appeal. Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Given the significance of April 1st, I would suggest avoiding that date. At least if you want people to take your request seriously.--Khajidha (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• 12 months seems perfectly reasonable. Changing usage by some news agencies is not going to change common usage in the forseeable future. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• April 1st, 2020 or maybe March 31 to avoid shenanigans. It seems to me the usage is changing rapidly. I only learned about this issue very recently, when I noticed the change in spelling in the media and came to find this discussion in full swing. In particular, many of the changes in style guides and official naming bodies are quite recent, with a slew of them occurring around August. So, unless there is a concerted effort by authors of new sources to reject this building scholarly consensus, we should expect that we will soon see a significant preponderance of "Kyiv" usage in new sources--which, in the case of WP:NAMECHANGES, are to be considered with greater weight. And, due to the impeachment proceedings in America, we should also expect to see many and frequent reports about Ukraine, so the sources will be easy to find. I don't think it helps to improve Wikipedia if we demand that we not consider new evidence while it's, you know, evident. --DavidK93 (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• 12 months. Ukraine is currently all over the Anglophone news and many organizations have announced changes to their style guides to endorse Kyiv, yet the actual results I find for new stories is STILL running 2:1 in favor of Kiev. If it ain't showing an actual increase in usage now, it probably won't anytime in the near future. --Khajidha (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• After a week it now looks like a clear consensus of editors has developed around 8 months or more for a moratorium on requests for move. The general consensus on the text of the moratorium was that it would state the date of the next allowable formal request for move (right now either 1 July 2020 or 1 November 2020) and that any informal requests for move would be quickly closed without discussion. There was a general consensus that any premature requests would be quickly closed without discussion with a note on the moratorium in the closing text, but would not be deleted in order to preserve any data within them. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The following is an alternative take, not part of my original comment and not related to it. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• After a week it now looks like a clear vote of editors around 8 months or less for a moratorium on requests for move. The general vote on the text of the moratorium was that it would state the date of the next allowable formal request for move (right now either 1 July 2020 or earlier and that any informal requests for move would be quickly closed without discussion). There was a general consensus that any premature requests would be quickly closed without discussion with a note on the moratorium in the closing text, but would not be deleted in order to preserve any data within them. I don't agree in going over the general 3 months rules. You can count my vote for the lesser 8 months, but not for the 12 months moratorium. And I feel the same goes for the 5 month'ers. Is the overwhelming majority against going over 8 months ?

consensus = agreement of opinion, accordance in opinion

What we have is a clear vote, not a clear consensus. :--Robertiki (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The two editors who have worked the hardest over the months to sponsor the move, User:Chrzwzcz and User:Roman Spinner, have both moved to the center, seeing the wisdom of a break in the continuous disagreement. Therefore, a true consensus can still easily be had by ignoring any radical editor. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I would note for my part that I would not oppose a moratorium that is longer than eight months if that were where the consensus were headed. I would also note that I understand User:Chrzwzcz's position to be not five months, but eight months, subject to a "quick check" or "reevaluation" at five months.

I would suggest that at this stage the wisest course of action may be to choose the lower bound of the consensus (i.e. eight months), on the basis that we can then if necessary extend it by consensus. Kahastok talk 16:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

My position is 5 months, quick check, pre-approved 3-month extension if not there yet. On the other hand I am OK with: 8 months long moratorium, because moratorium is not unbreakable (very very strong evidence can break it). Also thoughts about banning the naming discussion were not supported, so new evidence can be stacked on the naming subpage without RMs and that's reasonable compromise. Chrzwzcz (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I think different people mean different things by "ban". IMO they should be banned, with the ban enforced by speedy closure of any discussion started. But the difference between that and saying that they are not "banned" but will be speedy closed is purely semantic.

It seems to me that either any new discussion raised on naming will be aimed at changing the name of the article (in which case it will be covered by the moratorium) or it will not be aimed at changing the name of the article (in which case it should be closed per WP:NOTFORUM). Either way, naming discussions should be being speedy closed.

It also seems to me that we should consider the objectives of the moratorium, which to my mind are twofold. First, to give some breathing room for other improvement to the article. Second, to reset the discussion so that editors are looking at it with fresh eyes the next time it comes up.

If we have regulars routinely starting discussions that then get closed (either bringing the same arguments up over and over, or because they are working on the basis that "new evidence can be stacked" here) then neither of those objectives will have been achieved. And since the editors likely to make such postings are likely to be the ones who want a change, this would IMO work against their position in the long term.

And if we somehow concocted from this discussion a moratorium that only covered RMs, and that allowed other naming discussions to continue as they do now, then I would view that as likely to be counterproductive and so I would oppose it outright. Kahastok talk 14:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This discussion about moratorium talks only about RMs, apart from your interpretation I ca't find anywhere explicitly stated that something else is not allowed during moratorium period. Chrzwzcz (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

That may be true IF you mean only this discussion about how long it should be. The discussion that led to the proposal of a moratorium includes several people pointing out that allowing people to yammer on and on about the name as long as they don't make a formal proposal out of it is pointless. Besides, many of the people who make these posts about "this article should be moved to Kyiv" are "drive-by editors" who don't know (or don't care) about how to make a move proposal. For this moratorium to have any meaning it MUST include any discussion or comment about Kyiv vs Kiev. --Khajidha (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The versions of the moratorium have risen to the surface:

• Close and delete all RMs and discussions right away.
• Close and delete all RMs, but just close discussions right away.
• Close all RMs and discussions right away, but don't delete.
• Close all RMs right away, but let discussions go on.

The first is objectionable because drive-by editors might not understand why their post was deleted and start edit warring. For the proponents of the change, it also might delete valuable arguments or data

The fourth is objectionable because that's not much better than what happens now and simply cements positions.

The second also might delete valuable arguments or data (although less of that tends to occur in an initial RM posting that would be closed immediately).

Perhaps the third option is the best compromise: close everything right away, but don't delete anything. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The third version is what I had always assumed was to be done if the moratorium passes. Deleting anything would just lead to edit wars as people who are unaware of the moratorium keep trying to readd their comments. --Khajidha (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I meant "piling-up the evidence" kind of discussion. It is not really a discussion when it is just list of new sources. Better to be on a talk (sub)page, because people may want to add it into the article right away (and this source uses Kyiv, and this one, and this one...). Just "FYI" list which will be relevant no sonner than 1 July 2020 or whenever moratorium ends. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Piznajko proposed something similar last year (Talk:Kiev/naming/Archive_12#List_of_English-language_media_outlets_now_using_Kyiv_spelling_(will_be_continuously_updated;_don't_archive)) and it was roundly rejected as being an inappropriate use of this talk page. New sources can be added to the article without any discussion about the naming of the article. There is no point in piling them up here, if there is no discussion about moving the article. If you want a list of such sources, that's what your sandbox is for. --Khajidha (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hm, and did it help that you rejected it? No. RMs, repeated arguments, new puzzled people... It is preparation for the move (request) next year. Collaborated preparation so it can't be hidden in my sandcastle. Chrzwzcz (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(ec) I have to agree with User:Khajidha on this. Talk:Kiev and Talk:Kiev/naming are not the places to create a storehouse of evidence. That's what your personal sandbox is for (wherever you store it). The point of the moratorium is to take a break and come at the topic with fresh eyes in July. Watching User:Chrzwzcz build their case will do nothing but encourage opponents to do the same and there is no break and no chance for all editors to soften their positions (in either direction) for a productive discussion. Keep the new data hidden. (Of course, no one is deluded to think that at 0001 01 JUL 2020 there won't be a deluge of text and minutiae and a request to move the article before dawn.) In other words "prepare" elsewhere, not here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Preparation for the move request and collaborating on that preparation on this page (or at Talk:Kiev/naming) is nothing more than a move discussion under a different label. That's precisely what the moratorium is here to prevent. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hide the evidence because it would hurt your eyes. Hm. Well, you do your thing but it won't help like it did not work in the past. People WILL bring their evidence, they don't care about 10 people which decided what they personally want. They won't read megabytes of previous discussion, they won't know what your moratorium means. Now it means the n-word is completelly forbidden, (name beeing the n-word). Glad you told me, in that case I change my position to 3 months. "New sources can be added to the article without any discussion about the naming of the article" - meh, you won't allow it in pretenses like "not relevant", "too many examples" or "attempt to bypass name discussion moratorium". Chrzwzcz (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

No new editor's materials will be deleted. I don't know where you got that idea. Their posts will be closed without discussion, not deleted. What we are asking is that you, as an active editor here who knows what is going on, don't add to the mess by storing your megabytes of "argument" here and to respect the moratorium. I have been assuming good faith on your part to this point, but if all you want to do is to make this Talk Page a one-sided argument for your point of view without having opponents to distract you and your efforts to persuade those who haven't participated before, then I might suspect your motives. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree (with User:Kahastok). 1 July 2020 seems to be the fulcrum around which both the bulk of the short-termers and the long-termers can compromise. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

If a 1 July 2020 MR fails, a 3-4 month pause is the natural outcome, as suggested in WP:NO CONSENSUS: "Successful move re-requests generally, though certainly not always, take place at least three months after the previous one." A reflection: instead of a long discussion about the moratorium and a second one about it's length, would'nt have taken less effort to simply state a no consensus and suggest waiting at least 3 months ? And after 3 months, if nothing has changed, simply answer "nothing new under the Sun, so, once more, no consensus and lets see next 3 months." ? The discussions above look more as a political statement than other. And if at the end of the year, grows such a general consensus about changing to the proposed naming, any moratorium here decided would be simply moot. --Robertiki (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

That's ONLY in the case of "no consensus". No failed RM for "Kiev" > "Kyiv" has ever been "no consensus" (except when the closing is noted as "no consensus for move" rather than "strong consensus for no move" [which is has always been]). Just look at the closing for the last one: "strong consensus". Your definition of "consensus" is idiosyncratic and not standard Wikipedia understanding. Nothing changes in three months in this issue. Six months should be the minimum time between formal RMS (that's been the case historically here anyway. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

8 months, 1 July 2020 ? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Can we close and enact this now, please? --Khajidha (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please. Kahastok talk 21:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose any moratorium – The increased media coverage in the west about Ukraine will ensure this will be resolved by years end. We are adding to the confusion by vehemently holding on to the status quo. Fuck the New York Times. It is time for us to align with common usage.[1][2][3][4]--- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

You obviously haven't been listening to any of the public testimony in Congress, where everyone is saying "Kiev" except for the two ambassadors to Ukraine. Your position is noted, but is based on an assumption that you have no evidence for. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

As a note... It is a very different thing in saying something rather than writing something. It could change to the Kyiv spelling in months to perhaps a year or more. But even if the wikipedia title changes to Kyiv, it will still be pronounced as "Key-ev" in English for decades or more or forever. The words are too similar looking for anyone to change how they say it. It's not like it's being changed to the city of "Fred." Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I never did work out how Kyiv was intended to be pronounced in English. The obvious /kjɪv/ feels very unstable. Say it twenty times fast and you end up with either /kɪv/ or /tʃɪv/. Approximating the Ukrainian gives /ˈkɪjiːv/, but in my accent that's not meaningfully distinguishable from /kiːv/.

If anyone can give a better idea - by which I mean something that you can source and that actually conforms to English phonological rules - it should probably go into the article. Kahastok talk 23:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how it is "supposed" to be pronounced, unless it's spelled Keve everyone will continue saying it as key-ev (two syllables). I've never heard it any other way no matter how it gets spelled. Like here, or here, or here,... The most any American will do if they happen upon Kyiv is pronounce it Key-iv. We do not pronounce yi as a single syllable long E. So while this article may eventually turn into Kyiv, it'll still be probably 99-1 in favor of two syllable Key-ehv. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

"y" is a glottal sound which does not exist in English, so that it can not be pronounces in English any close to how it pronounced in Ukrainian.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I have listed on WP:RFCC. Since there's a risk it'll stay there for months, I suggest that we wait a day or two and then either post to WP:AN or just close with consensus for a moratorium up to 1 July 2020. Kahastok talk 19:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose a moratorium on discussion. The article should be moved when it should be moved. Proposals with new information should be given a voice, especially now because there have been more developments in usage of Kyiv in the last several weeks than since the start of these discussions in 2003. WP:TALK says the prime values of talk pages are communication, courtesy, and consideration. —Michael Z. 2019-11-19 00:31 z

Of course there are more proposals for a move request than there used to be, because the English-language usage of the spelling Kyiv continues to increase, and that increase is accelerating. In October 2019 alone, the Wall Street Journal, the Globe and Mail, the BBC, and the Washington Post all updated their style guides to the modern spelling. And a couple of months ago the Associated Press, which works with 15,000 news outlets, updated its AP Stylebook, the most influential style guide in English-language journalism. So the move requests are going to keep coming faster too. Get used to it.

If you don’t like dealing with Wikipedia editors and you don’t want to patiently explain your valid arguments for voting against the move requests in this democratic forum, then please remove this article from your watchlist and stop participating in the discussion. If your reflex is to stifle the free discussion, then there are better websites for you to frequent than this repository of open knowledge. See ya. —Michael Z. 2019-10-30 21:52 z

If Kyiv is becoming increasingly popular, and you say (interestingly, my spell checker still is not recognising "Kyiv"), I think it may be a good time to discuss which prospective events may serve as a indication of the need to rename the article. Instead of discussing renaming again and again, let's focus on possible criteria that will allow us to tell "Yes, now we can rename the article", and, accordingly, "No, it is premature". I propose to make a non-archivable section where all arguments will be collected together.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that is a really good idea. I am not a particularly prevalent editor of geography topics, nor am I any kind of authority on naming conventions or reliable sources, so I don't know how much I'd be able to contribute to that conversation, if anything. But based on the contentious nature of the above conversation, I think it could be a lot more productive to actively discuss the criteria, rather than the instantaneous question of the article's title. --DavidK93 (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course quick list of already mentioned arguments would be fine. Opposers rather explain the same thing over and over (if lucky) or direct you to previos RMs to read all the MBs of text (if not lucky) :) No criteria needed, sonner it was "after BBC starts", BBC has started and what - all forgotten. So why bother with criteria, only one is "We will know, it will simply be common". Every day new high profile source on board so I guess it will not take long anyway. Moratorium does not mean the issue can't be open. If really really important change/shift happens, moratoruium is lifted. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The list of evidence must contain evidence of usage. That's not "style manual quotes". User:Chrzwzcz tends to mischaracterize all opponents' positions just because someone said, at some time in the past, "when the BBC changes". I didn't and most opponents didn't either. A list of "evidence" isn't foolproof because one person's evidence is not necessarily that of another person. It is, in essence, impossible to draw a bright red line in this matter. A moratorium means that we can all back off and come back in six months to consider and discuss the evidence again at that time. But as it is, with the weekly fervor, supporters and opponents don't (and won't) change their positions just because of some micron of shift one way or the other. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like the OP thinks it is legitimate to persistently raise the same discussion over and over and over and over and over in attempt to drive productive editors away from the article. Ultimately, there comes a point where it is not good for Wikipedia for editors' time to be diverted to continually rearguing the same point ad infinitum, and I think this page reached that point quite a long time ago.

The criteria we need are detailed at WP:AT, and, if we move this article, we should move because a consensus has decided that the conclusion implied by WP:AT has changed. If there is a problem determining if that has happened, it is not because we don't have a standard, it is because it is unreasonable to expect people to independently reassess that standard from scratch every two weeks. Kahastok talk 20:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

No, User:Kahastok, I am not trying “to drive productive editors away from the article.” That is not a fair or charitable characterization, it doesn’t seem to be based on anything in my contributions to the article, to these discussions, nor to my voting in them. And it’s far from giving me any benefit of the doubt. How do you think it would look if I interpreted your contributions here in the least charitable light? In the future please do me the courtesy of tagging me instead of burying accusations about “the original OP” in your responses. —Michael Z. 2019-11-19 00:04 z

It is second move request this year, isn't it? Second. One, two - second. "Usage" is nice criteria. Opposers say "usage is not there yet", supporters say "usage is there already" and here we go again. I would say NYT is now one of nice indicators, NYT resists by choice not ready to switch yet. Chrzwzcz (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

By my reckoning, the above RM is the eleventh separate discussion raised on this precise point since the closure of the last RM in July. That is an average of one every nine days. And that isn't a signficant spike or sudden increase. And a fair few of those discussions have gone on for several days, as the same people raise the same arguments over and over again.

Of the rest, I would refer you to my previous comment. Kahastok talk 20:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I counted at least 14 move requests this year. It's why editors are sick of it and might vote no just because they are sick of it. If it was only done every October and every April, it would still be a lot but manageable. And pro-kyivers would potentially have clumps of new data instead of "look what happened today" data. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I can see only two from 2019 in that list above. But do the same people start the discussion? Same people joins discussion afterwards and repeat the same, but the initial editor may be confused by arrangement of this talk page. I am clearly not able to count RMs from this year and I am not here first time :) Of course this issue can be put on hold via moratorium, but it won't stop the people who don't understand this mess here to raise the question again. Or people who think they found definitive reason and evidence. With more and more sources on board every day, I can only predict you will see the name change suggestion here more often, with moratorium or without it. Unless you lock talk page completely or add huge red rectangle with warning on top and bottom of the page. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

A red warning is actually possible. And the remedy for the ignorant? Delete their post with a note to look at the red warning. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see why we would expect them to see, read, and abide by the warning box any more than they see, read, and abide by the existing notice "This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Before re-nominating, review the move discussions listed below."--Khajidha (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Now it is fine print, visible only for those who look for it and for superexperienced cocky wiki editors. You have to look at it as newcomer, help new people, not mock them that they do not notice something somewhere up on the page, moreover wrapped in technical bureaucratic mumbo jumbo, wikirules, wiki recommendations, moratoriums etc. Chrzwzcz (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

There should be a clear understanding of what is being proposed and what is meant by the term "moratorium". At the top of this page, as can be seen by everyone, is a list of Kiev → Kyiv submissions to WP:Requested moves. There was one in November 2012, one in November 2013, none in 2014, 2015 and 2016, one in October 2017, one in October 2018 and two in 2019 — one in July and one in October.

These requests have been visible to anyone who frequents or occasionally visits WP:RM, thus allowing for a wide range of participation. However, such move nominations that are widely seen at WP:RM should not be conflated with the discussions at the separate Talk:Kiev/naming page. During discussions on that page, participants tend to emphasize their views by indicating "Oppose" or "Support" at the start of their paragraphs, but those are not votes, but expressions of opinion and those discussions are not listed at WP:RM and are only known to those Wikipedians who either keep that talk page on their watchlist or visit that talk page on a near-daily basis.

Thus, based on past history, there is no need for a moratorium. We can all agree that there should be no more WP:RMs in 2019 and only one in 2020, perhaps in 9 months' time. On the other hand, respectful WP:GOOD FAITH discussions at Talk:Kiev/naming, should not be blocked or subjected to "Delete their post with a note to look at the red warning", which would be tantamount to censorship.

If someone posts at Talk:Kiev/naming, "I think that Wikipedia should move "Kiev" to "Kyiv" because the Library of Congress and all manuals of style are using "Kyiv"", someone else can explain that all manuals of style have not yet accepted "Kyiv" as the official form and allow space for discussion as to which sources are considered reliable and which are not, rather than deleting such comments and shutting down all discussion. Such authoritarian oversight of that page would not be in the spirit of Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

A FAQ like at Talk:Czech Republic could make this a little easier ("see point 1 in the FAQ above" or similar). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps both here and at Talk:Kiev/naming (and perhaps also at Talk:Ukraine?) there can be a note that says something along the lines of "While discussions of moving Kiev to Kyiv will continue, the article will be renamed only after a successful formal Request for Move has demonstrated a consensus for that move. By prior agreement, the next formal Request for Move cannot be initiated before June 2020." With a clear timeline, perhaps I can stop engaging with every proponent who crops up once a week. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I see little value in excluding general naming discussions from the moratorium. If a general naming discussion cannot result in a change the article (because the necessary RM is barred by moratorium), then it becomes merely discussion for discussion's sake. And per WP:NOTFORUM, that sort of discussion should not be happening on talk pages.

And note that a moratorium does not require that the comments be deleted. It is perfectly possibly simply to close them with a polite pointer to the moratorium discussion. Kahastok talk 18:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Under that standard, "general naming discussion" would become the description given to any exchange of views that falls outside the once-a-year WP:RM discussion, thus effectively shutting down the Talk:Kiev/naming page which, by its very name, focuses on that topic.

Any posting at Talk:Kiev/naming could be therefore classified as a "forum comment" and deleted by a participant who does not wish that this matter be discussed. Since talk pages are intended for submission of information that would improve the article and, since the Kyiv / Kiev name controversy is now frequently in the news, it is natural that ongoing events in that regard should be brought to the Talk:Kiev/naming page and freely examined without being pigeonholed as a "forum" and shut down. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The danger of allowing unlimited "discussion" of course is that those who bring their "change" comments here might be falsely encouraged when there is no opposition to their positions. With a clear moratorium on RMs, I'm going to spend less time here. But there needs to be some clear way to indicate to new editors that there will be no moving without an RM and that isn't going to happen just because they just saw "Kyiv" somewhere--it will not happen for months. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, at least no one would need respond anymore except the weekly anon pro-Kyiv bunch to each other since it would not move anyway. Many times a suggestion with no counter would embolden someone to make changes. A posting at the top of Talk:Kiev/naming that no matter how much pro-Kyiv talk goes on, no change will occur might stop anyone from engaging the weekly anon Ukrainian poster. The conversations might die down quickly with no one to argue with. And of course if it spilled into simple forum conversation it could be closed in a flash by anyone. I think it does more harm to the pro-Kyiv side by constantly bringing it up. Could you imagine no posts for a year and then someone saying "let's look at the all the changes that have happened in the last year." Those who had been angered by the glut of weekly move requests might be more open to change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It won't work. There will always be someone to bring the newest news about the progress. You just simply cannot issue moratorium and order complete silence about the changes in sources (ie plain discussion). There are 44 million Ukrainians, 2.8 M in Kiev... Even 1/10000th means a lot :) Those anons (how you call them "nicely") ruin the chances for the Kyiv-supporters, so... What can they do? Draw big visible sign "Hey, message from supporters of Kyiv to supporters of Kyiv: Just don't! Do not discuss it, don't bring any news, just be quiet for a while, don't ruin it for us all. Wait patiently, collect the evidence, it will be more effective all at once later. " Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Bringing to the attention of Wikipedians items appearing in reliable and respected sources, such as the one from Atlantic Council linked by Dekimasu above (05:23, 26 October 2019) should certainly be an appropriate non-forum use of the Talk:Kiev/naming page. Likewise, announcements that the form "Kyiv" has been adopted by a major institution, such as the Library of Congress or a major media outlet should also be appropriate topics for non-forum exchanges among participants.

I also agree that a boldface notice at Talk:Kiev/naming should state words to the effect that, "The most recent WP:RM on this topic was at Talk:Kiev#Requested move 26 October 2019 and the consensus is that another move request should not be submitted before July 1 / August 1/ September 1 , 2020". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Chrzwzcz, no one is talking about prohibiting posts about "I saw 'Kyiv' again today" unless they become disruptive (which is a defined Wikipedia-level problem and subject to admin action). We are talking about ignoring such posts, perhaps even issuing a standard reminder for new editors to look at the top of the page and its RM moratorium notice. The moratorium will strictly prohibit RMs only until the agreed-upon stated date. I also agree with User:Fyunck(click) that, like children sitting in the back of a car asking "Are we there yet?" every five minutes on a long road trip, editors constantly posting "Can we move now?" grows tiresome quickly and yields levels of resistance to a move that might actually be unwarranted at some point in the future. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually I am proposing that.

A moratorium that covers RMs but does not cover this, for example is a waste of time IMO because it does not resolve the problem we have.

If someone starts a discussion on naming, even if it is just "I saw 'Kyiv' again today", then that should be covered by the moratorium and should be speedy-closed. Not deleted, just closed. You suggest that nothing should happen "unless they become disruptive", well I'm saying that - however inadvertantly on the part of those starting these discussions - they have already become disruptive and that we should deal with that disruption.

And no, admin-level action won't help because admin tools are too blunt - protecting the talk page or blocking anyone who brings it up would be OTT. Mostly it's drive-by editors, not the same people bringing up the discussions over and over. Simply closing the discussions when they arise is a proportionate response, but to do that we need some basis on which to do it. Hence a moratorium. Kahastok talk 14:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Mmmkey. Now it is more like "Are we there yet? I already saw the sign so we must be there or just closer." Chrzwzcz (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No, that's just wishful thinking on your part ;) But in terms of establishing a moratorium and placing a notice of it here and at Talk:Kiev, it sounds like we're in general agreement. We should agree on the length. I think that the minimum length should be 6 months although I'd prefer 9-12 months. Perhaps we could symbolically make the next RM on 24 August 2020. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Last year it was OK to do 12 month moratorium, there was hardly any change. Nowadays, when each day new prominent source switches, it is a bit excessive. It looks like Kiev won't live through winter, so let's check March 21 2020. Chrzwzcz (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

"New prominent source" is only your personal vision. It's not usage, it's only recommendations that you're looking at. You're still looking at drops in the bucket while the rest of us are looking for the rain. But that's not the issue. The issue is that you're not even suggesting 6 months from now, which is the absolute minimum that everyone else has recommended. Most of the recommendations have been for 9 months or more. The world will not come to an end if Kiev isn't moved to Kyiv the very hour that English usage has one more Kyiv than Kiev. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

New sources promise to use it, I give them a fall and a winter to prove it and keep their promise which will ultimatelly mean more usage (or not, or not!). A winter was a poetic touch, if it MUST be 6 months minimum, then it MUST, world would collapse otherwise. Chrzwzcz (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

So it sounds like the moratorium shouldn't not prohibit comments from new editors about moving, nor should it delete them, but should simply close them with a comment about the moratorium. That way we don't silence them and any data which they might bring to the issue can be preserved. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds fine by me. Kahastok talk 15:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times changed its practice as of today, according to a tweet by Moscow correspondent Andrew E. Kramer: “The New York Times has switched to Kyiv, instead of Kiev, as the spelling for the Ukrainian capital. The change discontinues a Russian transliteration of the city's name, though one that had been in wide use in English for many decades.” Ping User:Chrzwzcz (who wrote “I would say NYT is now one of nice indicators” here) and User:Coffeeandcrumbs (“Fuck the New York Times”). I’ll agree to a moratorium on Wikipedians discussing this subject if you all agree to a moratorium on the English language continuing to adopt the modern spelling of this city. Davai! —Michael Z. 2019-11-18 20:23 z

There you have it. [One of the most "stubborn" sources fell. I did not expect it will be THIS fast, I thought Wikipedia would be quicker than NYT. Will anyone be impressed? No, on the contrary, longer moratorium will be proposed, more banning threats for supporters. For me it changes a lot and I am against any moratorium longer than 4 months. Chrzwzcz (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

It's time to implement the two consensuses that developed on this page over the last few weeks.

• A moratorium that is clearly stated here and at Talk:Kiev/naming that will immediately close formal Requests for Move and discussions about name changes without discussion.
• The next open date for considering a Request for Move will be 1 July 2020.

I don't know how to build templates in Wikipedia or else I'd do it. The discussion has virtually ended and it's time to implement. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Something like this, based on the one formerly at Talk:Czech Republic?

Kahastok talk 22:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)