Talk:Kyiv/naming/Archive 7

message: Hello,
Thank you for the tidbits.
However, that doesn't answer the question - what in the Wikipedia naming conventions claims that the name should stay Kiev, rather than Kyiv?
Again, I bring to the fore the section which reads:
A city, country or people, by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk. The country formerly called Burma now calls itself Myanmar. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names.
This section alone gives reason enough to move the page.
Please, let's stick to this question, and no more name-calling.
Thanks,
Horlo 01:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been through this already, goverment institutions don't make a difference here only on Google. Now you're saying that consensus is original research? Did you even read the original research page? Obviously not. I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Do some more research on the rules and you will understand why Kiev has retained its more common name. I'll tell you one more time. CONSENSUS REFLECTS COMMON NAME... FULL STOP. And consensus says that the page stays so the page stays. No other country is going to tell us Anglophones how to use our language and that is implemented in Wikipedia's rules. I'm done with this now. Reginmund 08:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Which vote? I don't see a single oppositioner that uses the "9x more" information? Reginmund 19:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Conventions 

message: Hello,
It seems that the situation has come full circle. This is where it all began a few weeks ago - with my request for a "straw poll".
Before, continuing, however, please let me first say this: being a grammar teacher, I have developed a certain manner of speaking, which may come across aggressive. I would like to state that there was no intention to thrust my wishes on anybody else, nor try to dictate how anybody should speak. If that's what has come across, please accept my apologies. Also, I don't think this is a question of anybody telling anybody how to use a language, or "us" vs "you". Most people here are native English speakers. I submit that the passion that you are seeing in this discussion is that feeling of offense which many Ukrainians feel at the name "Kiev". That's not for the discussion, just some background as to where we are coming from.
Two weeks ago, I wanted to open a poll, and re-open discussion about the name Kyiv. I sent out invitations to many people from the archives who contributed to this article - even people who disagreed with me. However, it was suggested to me by an administrator that I open a Request to Move at the same time. 
I opened a Poll/Request to Move on Sunday evening, hoping to get 5 days' worth of discussion. Much to my surprise, it was closed within 18 hours, admittedly outside usual procedure.
Therefore, I ask: How exactly is consensus achieved on Wikipedia? What is "normal procedure" with respect to a poll? Is it unreasonable to expect that people who are busy in real life also want to contribute? Can a minimum time limit be set?  
Thanks,
Horlo 02:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already been through this. Wikipedia doesn't decide on the English lexicon and neither does the Ukranian government. Reginmund 19:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to give my two cents, I'm a Canadian living in Alberta (we do have a fairly large Ukrainian community here) and I've honestly never seen it references as Kyiv other than on maps that also spell the capital of Italy as Roma. And before you call me ignorant, I pretty much watch the news every night and read newspapers and the such. Also, I did quick search in some humanities databases (Wilson Web, EBSCO Host, etc.) and Kiev is by far the more commonly used version in academic papers (including the recent ones). Honestly, I think Kyiv might slowly replace Kiev as the more common spelling but it definitely is not the case at the present in the English speaking world. If you check Google News, you'd also find the majority of major English news outlets do spell it Kiev. Anyways, that's just my two cents. I would support a move in the future should I see more references to it in the English-speaking media but definitely not for now... Sasquatch  t|c 21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Off topic. Point to discuss... how Kiev is more common than Kyiv. This is not determined by institutions or original research. Reginmund 01:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We've already been over and over and OVER why we shouldn't go on a quixotic, foohardy wild goose-chase naming various institutions, determining which ones use which spelling, which institution is more prestigious, how commonly they use those spellings, who in the institution uses those spellings, which editor of the institutions websites is superior to thee other editors when using those spellings, and why. That will lead to a four-dimensional labyrinth that will never be solved. As you can see, its going off the beaten path. That is why it has no merit as a policy on Wikipedia. The simplest way to determine this usage is not by the media's usage, but every Anglophone that is aware of the city's existence's usage. That way has already been proven with a vote and a Google test. Now, can you tell me what is flawed about those two or should we try some other go-nowhere route. Otherwise, if this doesn't work, I suggest we all get a musket, jump inside of a dustbin in an alleyway in Pandaemonium and go to sleep with the muzzle of the musket in our mouth. When we wake up, if there are more people that favour keeping this article where it is with their cranium still intact, then we stick with "Kiev". Cheers! Reginmund 02:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Achieving Consensus 

message: Hello,
It seems that the discussion has moved slightly from the original topic. Before we shift back, please allow me to state one thing.
I am from the Anglosphere. I was born in it. I grew up, and went to school in it. I went through higher academia in it. I have published books about English Grammar.
As much as this may come as a surprise to some, I am as much a member of the Anglosphere as anybody. Please don't tell me how "we", "in the Anglosphere" do it. I know. I probably do it more than others.
Actually, looking back throughout this discussion, it appears that most of the rational arguments from "the Anglosphere", which don't degenerate into rants after one or two disagreements,  prefer Kyiv. People from "foreign countries" for some reason insist on Kiev, and somehow claim to know what "English world" says. My argument all along has been that "the Anglosphere" is using Kyiv, and therefore so should Wikipedia.
Now, back to the original topic.
Reginmund, with respect to Google searches, you asked why 5% is insignificant. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) says so.
Once again, a question asked in Good Faith. What is the best way to resolve this issue?
Thanks,
Horlo 01:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I was wrong. On the advanced Google search, Kiev is 72% more common than Kyiv. Reginmund 06:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we are talking about the English language you have to use English-language websites.  When I went to the pages you referenced above and limited the search to English-language webpages, the result was 1,970,000  for Kiev and 2,040,000 for Kyiv .  Apparently the algorithm is is slightly different on different googles, because when I go to google (rather than your British google.co.uk) the number of Kyiv sites is smaller, 1,890,000 .  Either way, according to google Kiev and Kyiv are about equally represented on the web.  The discrepancy grows when one looks at books - in that case it's 14,400 for Kiev  versus only 856 for Kyiv .  Books published in the last 5 years show Kiev leading Kyiv 1452 to 544.  So everything depends on the different criteria.Faustian 17:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  The links you provided actually show more hits for Kyiv than for Kiev - 2,040,000 vs. 1,970,000.  As I wrote earlier: "Apparently the algorithm is is slightly different on different googles, because when I go to google (rather than your British google.co.uk) the number of Kyiv sites is smaller, 1,890,000 .  Either way, according to google Kiev and Kyiv are about equally represented on the web.  The discrepancy grows when one looks at books - in that case it's 14,400 for Kiev  versus only 856 for Kyiv .  Books published in the last 5 years show Kiev leading Kyiv 1452 to 544.  So everything depends on the different criteria."Faustian 18:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No it isn't. Kiev is the first link anbd Kyiv is the second. Kiev is obviously 72% larger. Find me a Google test that shows Kyiv to be larger than Kyiv. Reginmund 20:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This time, Kiev showed a little over 2 million and Kyiv about 1,900,000.  How is 2 million "72% larger" than 1,900,000?  It seems the numbers fluctuate a bit but that generally they are about the same.Faustian 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, they seem to fluctuate but Kiev is always higher. Reginmund 21:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I checked this morning Kyiv had been higher by a little.  Despite fluctuations they are always about the same, a far cry from your claims of Kiev being "72% higher".Faustian 22:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually it was a day ago. But doesn't it strike you that Kiev is always the most popular. I mean, it never fluctuates between Kiev being more popular then Kyiv being more popular. It is always Kiev is a little bit more popular and then Kiev is much more popular. Doesn't that tell you that Kiev is more "popular"? Reginmund 22:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, just this morning Kyiv was slightly more popular.  I find it hard to believe that it would fluctuate from a consistant 3% difference to a huge 72% difference.  As for popularity - I don't think I ever claimed that Kyiv was more popular (I don't think it is among the general public, although I am not a populist who think the mob should determine things), just that the differences are not as great as you have stated.  Personally I think Kiev is better and I use it, although given the decisions of most governments and especially most geographers (i.e., the National Geographic Society) I feel that Kyiv might be more appropriate. Faustian 22:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but you need to brush up on mathematics.  1,900,000 is about 77% of 2,490,000.  That is not the same as 2,490,000 being 77% more popular than 1,900,000.  Rather, it is about 23% more popular.  Remember, for Kiev to be 100% more popular it would be double the Kyiv's figure, 3,800,000.  So being 77% more popular would mean approximately 3,200,000 or so.  BTW, right now the figures are about even again (1,900,000 Kyiv vs. 2,020,000 Kiev).  I've checked a few times today and it seems the comparison is mostly a tiny Kiev advantage, with rare tiny Kyiv advantage and rare moderate Kiev advantage.  At most it has been a ratio of 1.25:1, very far from figures like nine to one or even two to one.  Well, I learned something in this conversation - that the number of google hits vary hour by hour.Faustian 
02:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, did you forget that it is %23 more popular? News Flash! We answer to common parlance, not government naming schemes as I have already pointed out WP:COMMONNAME. Reginmund 05:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, 9:15 Eastern Time, Kyiv is about 1% more popular than Kiev.  Anyways, in general Kiev seems to be slightly more popular, because the ratio varies over time from 2% Kyiv advantage to 23% Kiev advantage, with usually a 4-5% advantage for Kiev.  If popularity is the criterium for naming than Kiev ought to be the name.  If we want to follow not the mob but the official pronounciation , used not only by governments but also by geographers and cartographers, than Kyiv is correct.  I don't know what wiki policy is and frankly I'm not interested in such legalistic arguments and will defer to others.  At any rate, I don't agree with those claiming that Kiev is somehow insulting - it was the way the city was pronounced in the Ukrainian language until 100 years ago.  Taras Shevchenko called in Kiev.Faustian 13:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I was going by the words of the late Canadian-Ukrainian linguist Edward Burstynsky of the University of Toronto, probably the most renowned expert on the Ukrainian language, who claimed that Kiev was the proper pronounciation of the city in Ukrainian until only 100 years ago.  Therefore, all Ukrainians who lived prior to about the year 1900 pronounced that city "Kiev."  More info can be found here: .Faustian 15:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Give me a sentence in which I use we and I'll clarify it. To Faustian, Kiev is also quite common in the fields of cartography. It is best not to limit research to only certain sources. That is what the Google test is for. It encompasses all institutions that use Kiev. Right now, 19:22 GMT, Kiev gets 600,000 more hits. I'm not seeing fluctuate to %1 as you said. Reginmund 18:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Anglosphere and Kyiv 

message: Hello,
Could somebody please provide a definition of consensus?
I have looked through all of the Wikipedia guidelines, and there is no explanation of what consensus means.
It appears that consensus is the only argument left as to why the page should stay "Kiev".
Thanks,
Horlo 03:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then we'll have to go through these objectives piece by piece until there is. Reginmund 15:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not seeing any reference to the point that Kyiv was ever more common. NATO is not a media outlet itself but its website, since it is part of the WWW, makes it part of the media. As for another determination, limiting to sports, cultural, and religious associatons may induce bias from them and start another foolhardy trip off the beaten path. that is what the search engine tests are for. to sum them up. Never mind that anyway. The most important part of this discussion is polling and it has already determined that Kiev is more popular. Reginmund 03:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of consensus 

message: Hello,
Reginmund, I have never said that the Google test is inferior. I have said all along that it is only one test among others that should be used. It is common because it is easy, and that's why we use it most. That does not make it most compatible.
Actually, the burden of proof shifts to you: can you show me that a 10% sample of a population is a correct representation of the remaining 90%? Please keep in mind that we are discussing the entire Anglosphere, not just one country.
Thanks,
Horlo 21:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to do better than that. You have no proof that the ratio would be any different. Reginmund 01:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No, you are predicting that it would be different. It's not a fact. Predicting that the ratio would be differnt is original research. Especially when you have nothing to back that claim up. You would know if you read the page. Say if Wikipedia writes an article about a current event and the source is the BBC. Then you say that the BBC is too inaccurate to trust and you don't back up your claim. Its the same principle. The BBC is trusted enough by Wikipedia to implement its usage in the encyclopaedia as much as Google is and unless you don't have any prooof whatsoever to determine that the ratio of usage would be different outside of the Internet, your argument has no merit. It seems that the argument that you have that stands out most is the fact that all Anglophonic governments and internationalk organisations use Kyiv. Now this is emphasis on the subject but it doesn't overlap the common name policy. The policy to use this alternative is only enforced when the common name of an article is questionable. Let me remind you that the common name is not determined just by you, but by all Wikipedians who vote. They assess the information of the search engine test and the usage of media outlets, governments, and international organisations and they decide the commonality and if they follow the Google test, that is perfectly legitimate. Reginmund 17:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burden of Proof 

message: Hello,
Here are my arguments, in a nutshell:
There is a set of criteria listed at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references page which describe how "common name" should be determined.
They are
1.   The Google test
2.   Major Organizations
3.   Other Encyclopedia
4.   Major Media Organizations
5.   Governments
6.   Scientific Organizations
According to these criteria,
1.   Google is inconclusive, as Kyiv and Kiev are in a tie;
2.   Major organizations (UN, WHO, OSCE, World Bank) all use Kyiv;
3.   Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia use Kiev, while Encarta uses Kyiv;
4.   Media organizations use both - media outside the US, while US media with the exception of National Geographic, uses Kiev;
5.   Governments all use Kyiv;
6.   I did not check any Scientific organizations, and I don't know if that applies here. If anything, the only one that may fit would be National Geographic, but I include that in Media. What do you think about this?
4. Media and 1. Google are inconclusive, 3. Encyclopedia go for Kiev, but 2. Organizations and 5. Governments go for Kyiv. 
There is, however, on the page given above, also this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Naming_conflict#Types_of_entities
which states that when a self-identifying entity, such as a city, country, or people, has a preferred name for itself, that should also be considered when choosing the name.
Because of these points, I think the page should be called Kyiv.
Thanks,
Horlo 05:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary so far 

message: Could someone check their atlas? In my Chinese-based version atlas, I could not see "Moskva", "Praha", "Wien", "Kyiv" or other cities, but "Moscow", "Prague", "Vienna", "Kiev" respectively. Raymond Giggs 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlas 

message: Hello,
Yet another example of the wisdom of Wikipedia rules - that consensus can change when a bigger group of editors join the discussion. And I quote:
A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined.
The article goes on to say that negotiation should be carried out in good faith, an article can always be discussed again, and It is important that there is a way to challenge past decisions, however these decisions were reached. Decisions should therefore practically never be "binding" in the sense that the decision cannot be taken back.
This is not original research, it is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus_can_change#Consensus_can_change
With all of the facts presented here, I think that it is time to make another request for comment.
Thanks, Horlo 05:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not time for another RfC. It is time to start writing content and stop talking out everyone's ear and wearing down the community patience. You are interested in K..v? Start Lypky? Not interesyed in Lypky? Start Chokolivka. Still not? Mykilska Slobidka. No again? Far Caves, Tereshchenkivska Street, Instytutska Street, Teremky, Shuliavka, Solomianka. You don't like the old stuff and more interested in modern developments? Here goes: Michael Archangel column. With so many boundless possibilities and redlinks you can really demonstrate your commitment to the city you seem to be so concerned about. --Irpen 06:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I feel you are being mistaken on two counts. First, you don't want the issue resolved. It is resolved all right. You want it to be resolved to your liking. That's not gonna happen this year. Second, I have not seen a single WP:SPA to engage into productive writing ever. Perhaps some food for thought. --Irpen 06:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It is OK to cite one's own observations at the talk pages. I am not using my opinion as a source in the article's space. If you prove to become a first former SPA/article writer, I would only be a happier Wikipedian. --Irpen 06:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I said all there is to it early on. Your mere repetition of your mantra did not bring any arguments. I won't start this again. I have articles to write. --Irpen 08:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus Change precedent 

message: :No, it's not time for another RfC. It is time to start writing content and stop talking out everyone's ear and wearing down the community patience. You are interested in K..v? Start Lypky? Not interesyed in Lypky? Start Chokolivka. Still not? Mykilska Slobidka. No again? Far Caves, Tereshchenkivska Street, Instytutska Street, Teremky, Shuliavka, Solomianka. You don't like the old stuff and more interested in modern developments? Here goes: Michael Archangel column. With so many boundless possibilities and redlinks you can really demonstrate your commitment to the city you seem to be so concerned about. --Irpen 06:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel you are being mistaken on two counts. First, you don't want the issue resolved. It is resolved all right. You want it to be resolved to your liking. That's not gonna happen this year. Second, I have not seen a single WP:SPA to engage into productive writing ever. Perhaps some food for thought. --Irpen 06:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It is OK to cite one's own observations at the talk pages. I am not using my opinion as a source in the article's space. If you prove to become a first former SPA/article writer, I would only be a happier Wikipedian. --Irpen 06:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I said all there is to it early on. Your mere repetition of your mantra did not bring any arguments. I won't start this again. I have articles to write. --Irpen 08:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A better suggestion

message: Actually the discussion on this topic has gone on quite long enough, this page is up to 386,000 bytes. That is why it was re-opened to finally put it to bed. There is clear consensus for the move at the present moment.  Bear in mind that I am saying this as a disinterested observer, and I can see that the editors involved could have put about 380,000 bytes to better use than flogging a dead horse. In addition, anyone who refuses to participate in mediation should recuse themselves from the survey. 199.125.109.19 08:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you evidently realise, this topic has already been discussed ad nauseam. What makes you think that this latest attempt will differ from any previous ones? Until you have something new to say, you should not be opening move requests. --Stemonitis 08:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please bear with me. The previous two requests were erroneously closed early. Reaching consensus can take time but it does not need to go on adnauseum. From my impartial point of view it appears that a consensus has already been reached, which is to change the name of the article.  However, I would be happy to contribute that sensitivity to the millions of people who do not know that Kyiv is correct should be recognized, particularly in the lead paragraph. Come back in a week and see what has transpired.  I will be careful to review all responses. I can certainly posit that the phonetic pronounciation of Kyiv and Kiev are very close. 199.125.109.19 09:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where you've been looking if you've seen consensus somewhere. All I can see is a bunfight, and no indication that anything will be different this time around. English usage has not changed significantly in the last few months, and you have presented no further evidence in favour of a move. Don't take this the wrong way, but your commitment to reviewing the responses and your certainty that the pronunciations are similar really don't count for anything if you can't show that "Kyiv" is the more common term in good English-language sources. The only reason you have given for the move so far is that there is already consensus. This is clearly not the case, or the previous move requests would not have failed. Please consider withdrawing your request (as an "impartial" outsider, this should not upset you too much) and save us from wasting everybody's time and unleashing another wave of acrimony (if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor). --Stemonitis 09:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically the consensus process is a procedure for seeking out the truth.  Once whatever that truth is is revealed it is trivial to establish consensus.  It is important as elements in arriving at consensus to listen very carefully to every point of view to find out what truth it contains.  All comments are inherently directed to the discussion and never at one individual, other than to ask for clarification.  Consensus is most difficult to obtain if there are deeply held differing opinions that are not shared.  Personally I have about 40 years of experience with consensus decision making, and I do not see that this issue will be difficult to resolve. One research item I would like to see is how many news outlets such as AP/Reuters/BBC have a style manual which includes Kiev/Kyiv? So far I believe we have learned that the UN and all governments use Kyiv, and I confirmed that the US Embassy in the Ukraine uses Kyiv. WP:NC has a naming convention for Ukraine which states that "For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used." 199.125.109.78 05:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: If there are no votes, the requested move will be closed one week from today. 199.125.109.26 15:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :As you evidently realise, this topic has already been discussed ad nauseam. What makes you think that this latest attempt will differ from any previous ones? Until you have something new to say, you should not be opening move requests. --Stemonitis 08:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please bear with me. The previous two requests were erroneously closed early. Reaching consensus can take time but it does not need to go on adnauseum. From my impartial point of view it appears that a consensus has already been reached, which is to change the name of the article.  However, I would be happy to contribute that sensitivity to the millions of people who do not know that Kyiv is correct should be recognized, particularly in the lead paragraph. Come back in a week and see what has transpired.  I will be careful to review all responses. I can certainly posit that the phonetic pronounciation of Kyiv and Kiev are very close. 199.125.109.19 09:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where you've been looking if you've seen consensus somewhere. All I can see is a bunfight, and no indication that anything will be different this time around. English usage has not changed significantly in the last few months, and you have presented no further evidence in favour of a move. Don't take this the wrong way, but your commitment to reviewing the responses and your certainty that the pronunciations are similar really don't count for anything if you can't show that "Kyiv" is the more common term in good English-language sources. The only reason you have given for the move so far is that there is already consensus. This is clearly not the case, or the previous move requests would not have failed. Please consider withdrawing your request (as an "impartial" outsider, this should not upset you too much) and save us from wasting everybody's time and unleashing another wave of acrimony (if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor). --Stemonitis 09:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically the consensus process is a procedure for seeking out the truth.  Once whatever that truth is is revealed it is trivial to establish consensus.  It is important as elements in arriving at consensus to listen very carefully to every point of view to find out what truth it contains.  All comments are inherently directed to the discussion and never at one individual, other than to ask for clarification.  Consensus is most difficult to obtain if there are deeply held differing opinions that are not shared.  Personally I have about 40 years of experience with consensus decision making, and I do not see that this issue will be difficult to resolve. One research item I would like to see is how many news outlets such as AP/Reuters/BBC have a style manual which includes Kiev/Kyiv? So far I believe we have learned that the UN and all governments use Kyiv, and I confirmed that the US Embassy in the Ukraine uses Kyiv. WP:NC has a naming convention for Ukraine which states that "For geographic names in Ukraine, the Ukrainian National system is used." 199.125.109.78 05:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Hello,
There was a question about the major arguments in favour of a move. Let me re-state them here.
According to Wikipedia Naming Conventions, there are steps in using outside sources to determine what is the common name. These steps are on the WP:naming conflict resolution page.
First, the google test. The advanced google test, with filters for English pages only, shows a statistical tie. I have posted screenshots where Kyiv actually has a higher hit-count than Kiev, but I think that they are statistically tied. This category is inconclusive.
Second, major organizations. The UN, World Bank, WHO, NATO, and Red Cross all use Kyiv.
Third, major media organizations. Media in the US use Kiev, with the exception of National Geographic, but outside the US, usage is split. This category is also inconclusive.
Fourth, other encyclopedia. Encyclopedia Britannica and Colliers use Kiev, but Encarta uses Kyiv.
Fifth, governments. The governments of all English-speaking countries use Kyiv.
There is a sixth criterion, using scientific journals, but all of the suggestions provided on the page state that this category is strictly for pure science, such as newly-discovered elements or stars.
The biggest difference from the beginning of this discussion is the result of the google test. Nobody noticed that the guidelines give a simple method of filtering out non-English websites, and suggest using the Advanced Google. On a "raw" google test, the results are one-sided in favour of Kiev, but on the Advanced Google, the two names are tied.
With respect to the Google test, I have been called a liar. However, I took screenshots of the results, and posted them here: http://www.freewebs.com/horlo/kyiv1.htm 
Nobody has yet apologized for the name-calling, nor backed up claims that Kiev consistently scores 25% higher than Kyiv on the advanced Google.
These are the arguments that I put forth. The big change from last month is the difference in Google results.
If there are any new arguments against a move, I would be very happy to read them. As I have said before, please feel free to cherry-pick any of my arguments, but please avoid the name-calling.
Thanks,
Horlo 02:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-statement of arguments for the Move to Kyiv 

message: Hello,
I went to the CNN website and tried the internal search engine there. It came up with 223,000 hits for Kyiv, http://search.cnn.com/search?query=kyiv&type=web&sortBy=date&intl=false
and 503,000 for Kiev. http://search.cnn.com/search.jsp?query=kiev&type=web&sortBy=date&intl=false
However, when I looked through these pages, I saw that on the "Kiev" page at least three sites per page (of ten) were with Kyiv also. On some pages, six sites had Kyiv and Kiev. On the Kyiv pages, there were very few that had both, maybe one per page, and the rest used Kyiv exclusively.
Does CNN have a style handbook, or does it change according to editor, like National Geographic?
Thanks,
Horlo 01:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about the use of Kyiv by CNN 

message: An edit on ther mainpage suggests there is, but I can't find it, after some minutes looking.  Any result may well be invalid if it has been hidden away, and not notified on the main page. Johnbod 16:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is, I will fix the link from the talk page. The discussion is on this page at this link. 199.125.109.26 16:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would be happy to move it to the main talk page, it is not there because there is a well respected request to move all discussion of the name change to Talk/naming. If it is not advertised properly or not in the correct format, you will have to make the changes, I have done the best to the best of my ability and experience to do so.  Please refer to the history for Talk:Kiev. Thanks for your help in advance. 199.125.109.26 18:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a current discusion (September 2007) 

message: Please do not mess up the older archives by adding late material to them. I restored the full content of this page deleted earlier preserving all the entries added after this. If Horlo and the 195 IP want to archive some sections, please indicate until what point and I will create a new archive page.
Alternatively we may set the bot to archive this page automatically, eg. all sections older than 14, 30 or 60 days (up to you) are automatically archived. Let me know what you want. --Irpen 02:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please archive everything before September 1, 2007 (up to the section titled "Official spelling"). Please also put the August information in a separate archive from July so it can be referenced more easily (July ends with the section titled "Contrary to frequent assertions, the BBC actually still uses KIEV"). You can put all the up through July into the existing mid 2006 archive, as it is currently a very short archive. Since I am on dial up trying to view a 400 kB page is very difficult. I am hoping to resolve this issue quickly, so hopefully it will not be necessary to use MiszaBot. Please do not archive the paragraph at the top which begins with "This is a subpage of Talk:Kiev for discussing the name of the article Kiev." (Just delete the timestamp if you use MiszaBot) By the way, some of us do have a life outside of Wikipedia, so please wait at least 24 hrs for a response, and longer on weekends. Also, please make sure that the Request for move is properly advertised on the Talk:Kiev page. 199.125.109.35 19:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please archive!