Talk:Kyiv/naming

I went to see if the Google News situation for Kyiv and Kiev had changed since early October. I came across something which suprised me:

- Number of articles with 'Kiev' in the headline, published in the past month : 192[1]

- Number of articles with 'Kiev' in the headline, published in the past week : 533[2]

I just checked these results before I posted. Does anybody else see anything similar?

Thanks, 60.242.0.245 (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be a glitch with the numbers quoted for one week. If you actually go to the second page of the findings for one week you will notice, that there really are not that many. If I select "duplicates on" for the month (I got 197 there) the total goes up to 597. The same thing happens to Kyiv, by the way: 68 for last week, 62 for last month - and 68 again, when duplicates are allowed. Somehow the weekly count is incorrect and gives the numbers for the same month, including duplicates. The proportion between Kiev and Kyiv remains the same. I noticed the same glitch (39-33-40) with Antwerp one week, Antwerp one month and Antwerp one month duplicates alowed.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Paul - I wasn't able to work out what was going on. Do you recommend that the time period is left at one month for future checks?

60.242.0.245 (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I suppose that one week is too short to get usable results, anyway. I am not so sure about this "duplicate" business. Sometimes they come from the same site, but not always: some newspapers get their articles quoted more often than others. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I saw the note on the U.S. changing its spelling policy to Kyiv and the broken link. I went hunting, tracked down the State Department briefing session where it was mentioned (as Kyiv, on the State Department site), all good. I then went to the official names database to look for it and... nada. Upon inquiring, I received the following response (full body, contact at NGA.MIL deleted for privacy):

I am not suggesting anything be changed right now, I'm only providing the information. We can let it sit for a bit. It definitely requires some more followup. —PētersV (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

P.S. This is the problem with citing TV news. Links go stale, worse, no one bothers actually researching to get authentic information--and finding out the situation is both more complex and interesting than reported. "As seen on TV" is no way to reference an encyclopedia, IMHO. PētersV (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

For anyone interested, the GEOnet database page is here: http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/index.html -- you can find a text file suitable for spreadsheet import of place names for all countries. PētersV (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

PētersV, thanks for going to the trouble. Checking up on non-internet sources is bad enough, but when internet-only content is pulled off the web it makes things difficult.

I am surprised that Kyiv wasn't listed at all in the correspondence you received - either as a standard, conventional name, or variant. Would you be able to ask your contact about it please?

Thankyou,60.242.0.245 (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is because on the GNS database cited above the latest modification for the capital of Ukraine occurred way back in 1998 http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/Gazetteer/Search/Results.jsp?Feature__Unique_Feature_ID=-1044367&Diacritics=Yes&reload=1. We're dealing with outdated information here. Regards Eduvalko (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I saw that too. Unfortunately, the database is current as of this November, as confirmed. The issue is that the Department of State announcement has not been promulgated by the U.S. Board of Geographical Names (that's "BGN")--who are the official keepers of the U.S. version of geographical names. That's why I indicated further follow-up is needed. I'm looking to see if I can find anything other than the US DS briefing session which verbally mentioned the change to Kyiv before writing back to the government. Right now we have an announcement with no verification of adoption. PētersV (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I bundled off the Department of State briefing from October 2006 off to my contact asking specifically why the "BGN Conventional" entry still shows Kiev instead of Kyiv. PētersV (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Any luck? 60.242.0.245 (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not yet, but we did have the Thanksgiving holiday last week. I'll make sure to update as soon as I have a response. —PētersV (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, PētersV, thank you for your efforts. I still find this whole situation very amusing - the US government comes out and makes an official statement, with a press conference, press releases, and everything, that it will use the spelling KYIV, but some people still worry more about databases, and then I am accused of Wikilawyering.

I submit that the US government has other things to worry about, (I'm sure that everybody can think of something) rather than changing databases, and that this [[3]] should be enough proof that the US government uses Kyiv. All official websites like this[[4]] and this[[5]] and publications like this [[6]] show that the US government really does use Kyiv.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

No doubts about Kyiv here. I just thought I'd do the article a favor and track down the definitive source when the existing link (news story) went stale. The database entry should have been a no-brainer! I'm now waiting for the "thanks for letting us know our database was hopelessly out of date" Email :-) —PētersV (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

PētersV, good luck with the "Thank you" email - I think that they will get to that just after they fix the database.

Do you have any other suggestions? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

In the meantime, we can use this link to the State Department briefing (transcribed) where the BGN spelling decision was announced, spelling it out letter by letter ("K-y-i-v"). PētersV (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

(I see it's already a resource link in the article under "Kiev or Kyiv") PētersV (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can all please check Google results again? I now have:

- c.5,730,000 results for Kyiv [[7]]

- c.1,480,000 results for Kiev [[8]]

- Total: c.7,210,000 results

With all of the talk concerning Google search results in the past, the Kyiv spelling was always said to have been either well behind or neck-and-neck with the Kiev spelling. From the results that I have now, it appears that Kyiv is in the lead by a significant proportion. As can be seen from my search links, the searches were handled by Google's Australian locale (google.com.au).

60.242.0.245 (talk) 01:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Problem is, how many of these are clones of others? I checked the official U.S. geographic names database, still shows KIEV as the common English spelling, Department of State prononcements to the contrary. I never did hear back from my contact there, I 'spose it's time to wish a Happy New Year and inquire gently. :-) PētersV (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm also curious as to how the number suddenly went down about ten times from what it was counting before. I doubt that all of those links didn't just disappear. Reginmund (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's an increase from my old totals - but still lower than the totals some other users, including yourself, reported early last year. I remember that we weren't all using the same search parameters at that time; did you want to look at the URLs I posted above please, to see what you think of my current search criteria? And using those links, do you get similar totals to myself, for each spelling?

I hadn't checked Google results for a month, so I don't know how sudden this is. I obtained the same results today; it will be interesting to see if the results will remain the same after a week.60.242.0.245 (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

What I find interesting about the links that you provided was that again - even though the main title on the article was Kyiv, (Kiev) was included somewhere, to help those who need help. I think that skews numbers in both directions. Is there any way to eliminate that from the search? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

So, do other people obtain similar results? 60.242.0.245 (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Take two (for anyone rummaging through page history) Google results for non-Ukraine domains...

• +Kyiv -Kiev -site:*.ua = 217,000 = exclusively Kyiv [9]
• +Kiev -Kyiv -site:*.ua = 637,000 = exclusively Kiev [10]
• +Kiev +Kyiv -site:*.ua = 128,000 = explicitly both (assume this includes all Wikipedia derivatives) [11]

So, 3:1 in favor of Kiev outside Ukraine--actually between 2:1 and 3:1 depending upon the alignment of planets and which Google engines feel like responding. ("+" insures the word is actually there and it's not a match via some other association.)

BTW, I did write off to the U.S. geographical places names database folks again, still no response. I'll poke around the State Department to see if I can achieve some resolution. —PētersV (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Some additional stats:

• "+Kiev -site:*.ua" yields 25,900,000, "+Kiev -site:*.ua -wikipedia" yields 682,000
• "+Kyiv -site:*.ua" yields 2,090,000, "+Kyiv -site:*.ua -wikipedia" yields 226,000

The (side) conclusion is that Google searches to justify popularity of a term on Wikipedia are pretty much self-referential nonsense. —PētersV (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Go on http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2008/1/1/69342.htm, wait until it fully loads, and look at the picture of the first letter, and its spelling, Kyiv.

Hello,

In view of the above discussion about Google results, as well as the US State Department news conference quoted above - the speaker actually spells out the name of the city K-Y-I-V - I think it is once again time to open a discussion on whether the name should be changed.

Any Objections?

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

None from me 60.242.0.245 (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are we having a discussion?60.242.0.245 (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If there are no objections here, I will ask again on the main discussion page. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's going to be changed sooner or later anyway, I say go for it. Bogdan ^що? 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• What is the deal with the google results? If I remember correctly, that was the main argument opposing the rename. Have the results changed for everyone? Ostap 05:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I think different people have different issues. Personally, if a force of nature like Monopoly uses Kyiv, [12], it's good enough for me. Better than CNN. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree, that is certainly a a symbol of current usage. And I don't want to hear any cries of "politically motivated!" Ostap 06:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Curiously, for the Monopoly World Edition website: if one selected Australia as their country, the spelling used to be "Kiev", as opposed to "Kyiv" for the UK, USA and Canada (I didn't check New Zealand or others). Now all has changed to "Kyiv".60.242.0.245 (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think it should. Any objections? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

This was raised on this subpage eleven days ago, and no objections were raised. Go for it, put a notice on the main talk page. 60.242.0.245 (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it should the name Kyiv is not the most common usage in English sources for the city. As a UK based person I have never even heard the word pronounced. The google page hits are flawed as used above as pointed out by PētersV. In my opinion English language news searches are a better way to find common usage, especially with a relatively common term like this. GameKeeper (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

While I personally support it, editorially I don't think we're quite there yet for common English usage. —PētersV (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

How exactly is this determined though? I think we are at that point. Ostap 02:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, for example, I just took a look through the web site of the British Embassy to the Ukraine and found it highly conflicted over which version of the spelling to use even through one would expect it to conform to Kyiv. And I'd like to see something better than the single U.S. State Department announcement with no further corroboration (as in the geographical names data base is still Kiev). The best indicator, I think, would be what are U.S. and U.K. schoolbooks using? Please no more google searches! That's not scholarship. —PētersV (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

That does sound like the best way to check. But how is it possible? Ostap 05:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Gamekeeper, as a Canada based person, I have heard the name pronounced many times, in English.

What sources would you recommend in determining what is common? I have always recommended including as many sources from as many walks of life (education, sports, religion, culture, etc.) as possible.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm currently doing some consulting work at a publisher that includes "imprints" such as Longman, Prentice-Hall, etc. I browsed through some history high-school texts in the current "adoption" library (so, current titles being sold to schools and school districts). Five different books (different authors, different overall topics) all still used Kiev, one published in 2005, two in 2006, and two in 2007. I would expect school texts to reflect/teach mainstream usage, so not there yet. If I had found "Kyiv" I'd have rested the case "for." So, we have to come up with some other indicators of mainstream use (and, as I repeat myself, not google!). For example, if we could identify/agree on 6 or 7 encyclopedias (not specifically on the Ukraine, and not dictionaries). —PētersV (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Horlo asked me what sources I prefer, as I said above I prefer English language news searchs such as google. Here for instance is a search for USA based news sources for Kiev you can play with the entries and try for UK Canada or Australian based searches, it is important to click right through to the end as google searches initially estimate the number of hits, so you don't get a real number until you have got to the last page of results. I prefer news searches as 1) they are not 'official', common usage is about what people as a group decide not what governments or organizations dictate 2) news is current, so if usage has changed quickly this is reflected. 3) the Media tends to represent a range of different views, reflecting populations (at least in countries with a free press). Note: that this is my view of why the news searches are an approximation of 'common usage' as with much on Wikipedia it comes down to common sense. As you have noted Canada seems to have adopted Kyiv more readily than the other countries, as can be seen with news searches. The UK is way behind which probably explains why I have never heard the pronunciation Audio file "Kyiv.ogg" not found spoken on UK media. GameKeeper (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

My thoughts behind offering the idea of encyclopedias... First, popular usage is still conflicted at best. Google results do not give a clear vote in favor of the rename. And regardless of the numbers, they are too open to interpretation--in many ways, they are the ultimate WP:OR, a lab result you can interpret any way you like. If we rename the article on such a basis, that will last all of five minutes and leave the rename itself open to all sorts of spurious attacks (and some perhaps justified).

   If we can demonstrate, however, that acknowledged encyclopedic references--so, peer-reviewed, editorial boards, not just the word of one individual, etc.--have now come to favor the Kyiv spelling, then using that spelling here would be fully justified. It's not just whether we think we're ready for a rename, it's that a rename should stand up to scrutiny. —PētersV (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

With respect to Encyclopedia, Encarta uses Kyiv. Also, every English-speaking government uses Kyiv. Advertisements for the Euro-cup 2012 all use Kyiv. Even monopoly uses Kyiv.

I'd like to bring up one other point here - the idea of self-determination. The change to Kyiv is an important one in Ukraine, as is the decision of Western governments to make the change. Personally, I think that many governments did not change until they saw that Ukraine was a stable country, and the USSR or CIS will not re-form. The change is happening, so the name of the article should also change. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

User:Vecrumba I disagree that popular usage is still conflicted at best IMO it is more measurable than ever,. Basic Google searches are, i agree, not the way to go, but focuses searches such as media searches are useful. I disagree that they are WP:OR. They are independent and reproducible quickly, unless there is some special criteria introduced in the search they are in no way original.

User:Horlo, you said every "every English-speaking government uses Kyiv", I did one check and came across this as the 1st link this shows the UK foreign office using 'Kiev' preferentially. I am not going to check your other facts if the 1st one I check is so obviously not true. GameKeeper (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Gamekeeper, is it possible that the country brief is outdated?. For one thing, the Prime Minister of Ukraine is Yulia Tymoshenko, not Victor Yanukovych.

The travel advice website you provided a link to primarily uses the Kiev spelling. The Embassy in Kyiv website uses the Kyiv spelling. Confusingly, the advice offered by the Foreign Office uses both Kyiv and Kiev (even when referring to the British Embassy!). As (I think) you are a resident of the UK, do you want to try contacting the Foreign Office directly and sharing the results?

P.S. The country brief and travel advice given by DFAT, Australia use the Kyiv spelling exclusively, and don't even have 'Kiev' appearing once in brackets on these pages.

60.242.0.245 (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply