User talk:Bryndza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Naming issues again 2 Ban 3 Linking through redirects 4 U.S. Board on geographic names 5 Suggestion 6 Who is authority? 7 Prevailing usage

[edit] Naming issues again

First of all Alex Bakharev and Irpen, then others. Look how ridiculous is the situation. Shao comes from uk wiki. He has 28! articles of the week on this wiki. He writes solely on biological and geographical topics. Here he also started to create high quality, comprehensieve articles on same topics. Nothing "nationalistic", nothing controversial. Even not asingle word on political issues etc. Just he is using geographical names that ARE correct. Not for your "consensus", "WP policy" or whatewer yor call yourself. And seems like he is going to be banned, driven away, and will leave en. wiki. Then Alex will write that there are only "two active and handful semi-active editors out of thousand wikipedians". But he will write it to next person who comes and stumbles over same stone. This was with me, AndriyK, and many others I don't know. Situation repeats over and over again. Do you guys understand what you are doing? This is the way you are improving content of this corner of WP? This is the way to build up local Ukrainian or Russian community of WP editors?

Irpen wrote in his latest reverts: "Correct names in English are defined by Webster, Oxford dictionaries as well as major media. I suggest you look there and see for yourself". I truly believe you. But are you sure this is where you have to refer to? When were they printed? Did you look it up in 2007 edition? Did you hear that the scretary department of Congress of the United Stated issued indications (last year, 2006) to change spelling of Ukrainian geographical names from old (Soviet) to correct ones - Kyyiv, Odesa, etc. in all their documentation. Did you know that? So if this pretty serious official body, the one, who, I would say, was the most serious "spreader" of old names did it, then "WP policy" can not do it? Irpen also wrties: "your desired change can only be accoumplished through a change in naming conventions, not revert warring". So what about changing it? Is there not enough reasons? You will strat telling me over and over again that "English speeking users are more used to..." and I will tell you that "there is mechanism of redirects in WP and we can olways write Kyyiv (Kiev)...", we will use same arguments millointh time again and come to nothing. Why because SOME people here prefer to stay where they are. It does not matter for them that times and the world around are changing, that they are loosing and scaring new valuable and productive editors, that THE IS a solition for this. It takes my time, it takes your time, it is counterproductive. But unless there is a wish. I mean unless there is clear view from your side (I mean those who keep this part of WP under their control. Don't tell me this is illusion) that something must be done - there will be no progress over this question. So my question is: Do you see some other ways to solve these issues except for doing what you are doing now?--Bryndza 14:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Bryndza, all your arguments are useless. This problem, according to present circumstances, can be completely solved only via editorial war. Also it can be solved partially by allowance to use hyperlinks to redirect pages. Properly speaking, it's exactly the way which I'd like to use. I don't have any idea concerning the result: may be in the end my opponents will secure a prohibition of redirect pages' usage. But it's the only way which can lead to acceptable result for both sides: allowance to use redirect pages for hyperlinking.

I am not very familiar with english wiki-policies (and have no time and willing to study them in finest details), but it seems to me that it is no any restrictions for such type of redirect pages' usage. So, my opponents should agree with local policy, I suppose. --Shao 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Editor's war will lead to anything good. Do you want to wake up every morning and first thing you do - check if somebody reverted your edits on 10-20 articles? I don't. Waste of time. Plus they will block you much earlier even if you don't violate 3RR rule, start arbitration etc. Both sides will loose. I hope it is clear - you will not be able to enjoy writing your articles - they will loose productive editor. So I suggest to find any other possible compromise. redirect links are good option in my opinion, and this is one of the greatest features of WP, but I think our opponents would not agree on this solution. Therefore I suggests (again and again) to use Kyyiv (Kiev) form. Finally, there are not so many names that need it. Kyyiv, Odesa, Dnipro come to my mind first. For some anglophone people that would be also good to have both names in front of their eyes. But let's see if other side wants to do something at all. And we better do, otherwise this will resurface again and again and waste our time again and again.--Bryndza 16:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Discussing, unlike revert warring, is always the right way to resolve the differences. I will post to this page later today. In the meantime, may I ask you to review this discussion I had with Krys so that I will not have to repeat things I already have said? Later, --Irpen 17:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Prevailing opinion" and a number of links in Google search are not arguments for the right or wrong. At least, some time ago millions of people were convinced that the Sun is rotating around the Earth - but that's not true. The same with Ukrainian cities' spelling: if mistake is common, it doesn't make it truth. Right transliteration is the one established according to correspondent ukrainian law; more common transliteration is the old from Soviet times. But if mistake is common, it does not matter, that any encyclopedia must strictly follow it. --Shao 17:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Mistake #1. The Ukrainian laws do not regulate the English language and do not define what is "right" and what is "wrong". That is defined by the dictionaries. Ukrainian laws only regulate what spelling should be used by the Ukrainian government bodies. --Irpen 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Local laws regulate official transliterations of all objects at their legislative territory, for all languages. Example 1: Côte d'Ivoire is the official name of the country in spite of the wide-spread wrong name "Ivory Coast". Example 2: the same with Myanmar and "Burma". Example 3: USSR and "common" usage of "Russia" between 1922 and 1991. All three names were accepted as right since they had been established by local governments of correspondent countries. --Shao 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I used same arguments as Shao does long time ago when we discussed this Irpen. I still did not change my mind. I would not classify it as mistake, Irpen. Ukraine is able to tell others how to spell correctly it's own geographical names. If Ukraine decides to move capital from Kyiv to Kharkiv - it will do so and others will have to recognize it. When are those dictionaries you are referring to edited? I have most comprehencieve geographical atlas edited in 2006 in Canada or USA by National Geaographic. ALL names there are spelled they should be. Does it present any authority to you? And what US Senate have passed? Do you need me to post references here? So. Even we assume that #1 of yours and agree that Ukraine can not indicate/recommend how to spell it's own geographical names (which is not completely true), then do you agree that these "external" bodies are folowing Ukraine's recommended spelling already? Not en maso, of course, but US congress and national Geographic are far more significant things than gazette articles. Don't you find?--Bryndza 18:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

NO they are not, associated press, CNN and BBC are significant. And they use Kiev! I mean think of how rediculous would it be if Ukrainian government chose to alter its Russian language publications from Киев to Кыйив. What would be the reaction to that? Would any Russian language publications change? Wikipedia has a WP:NC(UE) policy which means Moscow over Moskva, Warsaw over Warszawa, Baku over Baki, Tashkent over Toshkent, Finland over Suomi, Ukraine over Ukrayina ... Kiev over Kyyiv. BTW Kiev is not a Russian name, the Russian romanisation would be Kiyev or Kijev. --Kuban Cossack 18:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See before examples of Côte d'Ivoire, Myanmar and USSR. But also - is it already prohibited to use redirect pages for hyperlinks? I just do the following: link a page Kyiv which transfers user to Kiev. Could you please show me a rule which prohibits this? --Shao 18:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NC(UE) is you rule. Now titles of nations are not the same as titles of cities. So far wikipedia has been inconsistant. For example Russian Federation vs. Russia and at the same time we have the Republic of Macedonia of Macedonia and such. Now wrt to Ivory Coast, then BBC actually used the English name during the 2006 world cup. So as you can see titles of countries are not uniform and there are hot discussions on the topic already. So whilst I would not use the term that those names are "temporary", but there is nothing to suggest they remain permanent. However comparing that to a city name is incorrect. City names are given by their English names. However English is not a state language of Ukraine, unlike India and thus the example of Mumbai/Bombay (sooner or later you would have brought it up) is not the same as Kiev/Kyiv/Kiyev. The better parallel is the main river of Ukraine Dnieper. Its Russian translit is Dnepr, Belarusian - Dnyapro, Ukrainian - Dnipro... but in all cases here we use Dnieper when referring to the river itself. Same with Kiev, its Ukrainian translit is Kyyiv, Russian Kiyev, Polish Kijow... but in English its Kiev and should always be referred to as such. --Kuban Cossack 19:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In WP:NC(UE) I cannot find any interdiction for the usage of redirect pages in hyperlinking. Once again: why I cannot use page Kyiv as a link to page Kiev? --Shao 19:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry to barge in, but I see some misconceptions here. This is English language encyclopedia, and English language has its own geographical normatives (BGN/PCGN), which may or may not be influenced by the political tides.
• It seems, so far, these were not readily influenced by any intra-national or supra-national standard bodies' decisions w/r to the technicalities -- so, translit systems per se, however, were generally accepting the "nationalised" spelling. Why not consult the BGN database? Yury Tarasievich 19:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. Is there such database with English official standards for geographic names? It would soleve the dispute.--Bryndza 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, such globalities as country/capitals names naturally tend to stick. Besides that, the news agencies and vernacular use rather do not set a language standard on such issues? Yury Tarasievich 19:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, fine. And what about the usage of redirect pages for hyperlinking? Is it already prohibited?--Shao 19:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically, it is not prohibited, but you should expect that such redirects might all eventually be flattened by bots. Plus, I don't really see the point of such redirects except in cases when the modern (after 1991) city is mentioned.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's not prohibited why Irpen had already asked to press me for the usage of this editorial trick? Shao

It's not prohibited, but it's not encouraged either. If one can link directly to an article, one should do so unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. From what I see, your argument with Irpen and others is about what constitutes that said "good reason", not about whether or not linking via redirects is prohibited. In my personal opinion, if that interests you any, unnecessary linking via redirects is a bad form and just plain impolite towards other editors who would have to weed through redundant redirects.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ban

Shao, please wait for eight hours. Posting through the changed IP is block aboidance and may increase your block length. I did all I could to avoid your getting blocked. Please understand that you introduce the disruption. --Irpen 19:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice, Irpen. First thing you did - initiated his ban. Now you are saying that you did all you could to avoid it... What about talking first, like we do now?--Bryndza 20:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not initiate the ban and did all I could to avoid it. I tried to talk to him multiple times, pointed out that he should propose to amend the naming conventions if he sees them deficient rather than run revert wars to make a WP:POINT to no avail. I specifically asked before that the user is talked to rather than blocked (which was done) but he chose to ignore that as well. I warned him that if he persists, I will report him for disruption and he continued with reverting nonetheless. How many more times should I have attempted to talk to him? --Irpen 20:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

So this was initiated by some other Irpen? Or somebody else prompted his ban before? Who? I know, you and others tried to talk a lot but why to destroy his logs with bans...? Especially when you may be not right. Look at his point about Postal Codes. I think it is very appropriate excatly in this article to forget about your "policies" and leave exact official name of the cities--Bryndza 20:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Bryndza, my ban was initiated by another fighter against xenophobia - Kuban kazak. --Shao 14:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. Then Irpen must be reabilitated. I did not notice since I have got used to not notice what that individual is writing or doing. Works best, I recommend.--Bryndza 22:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I specifically asked that he is not blocked but talked to and he was not blocked at that time. I also tried to warn him many times to stop edit warring and discuss naming conventions to no avail. He ignored all that and continued edit warring and even resorted to insulting me by ethnic talk. Finally, I gave him a last warning that he should stop. Right after that, he went on and reverted again. He was reported last time not by me, but I would have reported him as well. Check his talk. He ignored calls to stop edit warring and start talking multiple times. --Irpen 21:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linking through redirects

The point that in-text usage may be different from the name of the corresponding article is valid. But such trick may not be used on the whim and must have a valid reason. Such reason would be the prevalence of the historic usage in a specific historic being different from the currently prevailing usage in the modern context. For example, in the WW2 context, all major literature on the military history uses Rumania and Kharkov despite most commonly used modern names are Romania and Kharkiv. One may talk about Kijow Voivodship and Peremyshl Principality (despite the modern name of the latter city is Przemyśl) because the appropriate literature about the respective period uses such name. In the modern context Kiev and Odessa are most commonly used and such spelling should be used in the articles.

Another proper usage is when the word is a part of the larger Proper name that is known in its own right, like FC Dynamo Kyiv, Kyiv Post or The Kyiv Beet. --Irpen 19:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. So, I can introduce all these valid reasons here. 1: Names "Kyiv", "Odesa" etc. are used by a number of people and even in state documents in Ukraine. 2: People whose native language is Ukrainian know these (and some other) cities under Ukrainian names. Should we consider that they must not have any possibility to know what is the "common" English spelling for Kyiv? Probably not. So, these redirects give them a possibility to receive such a knowledge. 3: In Ukrainian postal codes article I try to use official names adopted by UkrPoshta for addressing. It's an article dedicated to postal service, BTW. Don't you think that it's better for foreigners to know what exactly they have to write at envelops in case of sending letters to Ukraine? But you try to introduce a mistake again and again. May be you will change digital postal codes in this article as well? They are quite different from codes used in Ukraine during the Soviet times, and from modern Russian postal codes as well. And a number of people know (and even still use) old versions of postal codes. The same situation as with cities' names, isn't it? So, shoud we change Ukrainian postal codes according to Russian system?

Since I am already banned in English Wikipedia, you can post your further thoughts to my ukrainian "discussion" page. Shao

I don't think you are banned from discussions. At least it would be bad idea IMHO.--Bryndza 20:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we all should pay attention to this argument No.3 above. It is good reason to leave official names of cities in this article (at least). Also let's see what Yury Tarasievich will tell us about existance of standards for English geographical names. This may solve the issue.--Bryndza 20:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Board on geographic names

Found it. The Geographic Names Server is the official repository of standard spellings of all foreign place names, sanctioned by the United States Board on Geographic Names....The database can be used for a variety of purposes, including establishing official spelings of foreign place names... Please check yourself. I suggest to go here and try typing in search Kiev and Kyyiv. For those who trust my words: Kiev city does not exist. Kyyiv does. Now tell me that this is not valid authority, or BBC is more reliable.--Bryndza 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, listen to Confucius:

One day, a disciple asked Confucius: 
-“If a king were to entrust you with a territory which you could govern according to your ideas, what would you do first?”
Confucius replied: 
-“My first task would certainly be to rectify the names.”
The puzzled disciple asked: 
-“Rectify the names?…Is this a joke?”
Confucius replied: 
-“If the names are not correct, if they do not match realities, language has no object. 
If language is without an object, action  becomes impossible - and therefore all human 
affairs disintegrate and their management becomes pointless and impossible.  Hence, the 
very first task of a true statesman is to rectify the names.”

You know, we already went through exactly this with Russia (of all places). In Wikipedia, common English usage (WP:UE) takes precedence over any romanization scheme. Hence, we don't use "Moskva", as BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian prescribes, but "Moscow". Kyiv/Kiev falls under the same category.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And you were right, as there is no Moskva city according to U.S. Board on geographic names [1]. But the situation with Kyyiv is different. There is no Kiev instead...--Bryndza 22:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You do use Moskva, for example Hotel Moskva. It's the question of establishing the prevailing usage in each particular context. Contrary to Moskva, Kyiv has been already predominantly used when it came down to the governmental issues. And as you see, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names had recently switched to that name, etc. The life is going on, but some retards are trying to downplay the recent development, proudly attempting to keep Київ as Kiev in each and every instance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KPbIC873453245 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Just as with "Moskva" in "Hotel Moskva", we also use "Kyiv" in FC Dynamo Kyiv. As for the government issues, don't forget that we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a government press release. Wikipedia is for human readers, not for the borgs from the government. Here is an example from real life, which I find rather telling. I was approached by my American co-worker the other day, who asked me whether it's true that the Ukrainian government is trying to change the English spelling of "Kiev" to "Kyiv". I said that it was. His response? "What nonsense!" Note this is coming from individual who happens to know full well that Ukrainians consider the Russian spelling to be a remnant of their "dark colonial past" and who is overall sympathetic to Ukraine, Orange revolution, and Ukrainians in general. From what I see, his attitude regarding the city name is prevalent in the US. The U.S. government knows that Ukrainian is the official language in Ukraine and bases romanization on Ukrainian, but, as Irpen correctly indicated below, it cannot designate it the only "correct" version of the name. Which is why Wikipedia uses WP:UE, and not the version devised by a single government agency.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ëzhiki, one comment outside of the main discussion. You wrote "from what I see, his attitude regarding the city name is prevalent in the US". I don't agree with such statement. Not only in this particular case, but in general. The U.S. government is the authority which is elected to represent the interest of the people. Then, first of all, unless we are dealing with a dictatorship, the most telling thing is the position of the government. A guy may say "What nonsense!" for a variety of reasons, including just to please you knowing your interest in such topics. If he were in a position to really weigh the pros. and cons. of such decision, or if he were actually to make such decision, he is likely to behave differently. It's not a nonsence to use a name of a person or a place, as that person or people prefer to be named. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KPbIC (talk • contribs).

Krys, we already discussed that your invoking hypothetical desire of the city population is misplaced. Firstly, such criterion is not included anywhere in WP:NC or in the conventions of any other encyclopedia. Besides it would be hard to implement as it would require the drammatic change of all geographic names. Poles might have prefered Warszawa and Germans might prever Munchen. Secondly, your claiming that the city residents prefer Kyiv, while this is largely irrelevant, is nothing but your own original research, as I already told you. This is not something anyone checked. --Irpen 23:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, by "prevalent in the US" I meant the opinions of regular people (potential readers of Wikipedia), not the US government policies. The same US government which uses BGN conventions for established names, for example, wages a war in Iraq despite two thirds of the US population now being opposed to it. Doesn't look like a good representation of interests to me.

Secondly, I did not really hope that my example would weigh much in the discussion; it was just a curious occurence I thought I'd share. Of course, I realize that an opinion of one random guy doesn't mean much by itself; my point was that I, personally, find his attitude rather in line with that of the rest of the US population whose reaction on this piece of news I had a chance to observe (not that large of a sample, I admit). Why they react the way they do is a topic of a different discussion, one that is hardly relevant here. For us, it's the end result that matters, and it is that it takes quite a while for a change in familiar practices to catch up, and that some catch up sooner than the others.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, some names tend to stick. It's only a question of determining, what exactly may be left as is (oughtnt' be much), and what should be normalised to standard. Yury Tarasievich 22:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow up to Ëzhiki. Since you are right about writing encyclopedia for human readers that come from different backgrounds and with different preferences, don't you agree that having Kyyiv (Kiev) variant in many cases would be beneficial rather than thorough elimination of any instance of Kyyiv except from main article. Some users here even play role of robots by replacing all those "damn" Kyyivs.--Bryndza 22:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be beneficial in many cases (post-1991 topics being the most obvious), but not in the majority of cases. And it's the majority of cases that defines the title of the main article.

As for the "robot users", I haven't had a misfortune of meeting people who would make a point to replace Kyyiv/Kyiv with Kiev, so I can't speculate why anyone would want to engage in such an activity wholesale with no regard to context.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to point with fingers here, but someone has such hobby. This is often his only edits in the article. Not Irpen. And what do you think about having Kyyiv instead of Kiev and Odesa instead of Odessa in Ukrainian postal codes. Isn't it more appropriate for this particular instance?--Bryndza 22:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If I were working on something similar, I'd be using the [[Kiev|Kyyiv]] convention. Simply writing [[Kyyiv]] (i.e., Kiev via redirect) would also be acceptable here, but I just don't like to use redirects unless absolutely necessary. I do agree that using just [[Kiev]] is less than ideal in an article about modern Ukrainian postal codes. I certainly would not make an edit just to link to the actual article title.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope others find [[Kiev|Kyyiv]] to be reasonable too in this case. I will transfer this piece of talk to the article discussion page.--Bryndza 23:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with "Kyyiv" is lack of clarity and oddity to the average reader. "Kyyiv (Kiev)" may be a solution for this particular article. Let's continue this at its talk. --Irpen 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If I were working on something similar, I'd be using the [[Kiev|Kyyiv]] convention. - Editorial war begun since I tried to use exactly this way of data representation. In the end, I was banned for the observance of this "convention". So, does somebody still think that this kind of consensus can be held here? --Shao 14:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't offer any comment on this as I was not among parties that participated in the dispute you refer to.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Shao and Bryndza: I would suggest to file RfC on the issue of establishing the historical context of Kyiv spelling usage (which has already more than 5mln hints in Google at this point). But guys, I apologize, I don’t think I can help you on the issue at this moment as I don't want to spend time on Wikipedia, but rather stay tuned with real life. If you do initiate this, you really need to commit yourself to the issue, as it will take a lot of time and efforts. You will need to get the support of the international community. I would stress that prohibiting Kyiv brings more harm than good for the project. Best, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KPbIC873453245 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Nobody is prohibiting the usage of "Kyiv"; on the contrary, it should be encouraged in post-1991 contexts. The issue at hand is about the usage in other contexts, as well as about the title of the main article. As for the voice of the "international community", isn't it what the English-language mass media mirror in the first place?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's exactly the case. The article Ukrainian postal codes dedicated to postal codes' system established after 1991. So why not to use "Kyiv" and "Odesa" there? Shao

[edit] Who is authority?

Unlike Ukrainian and Russian, which have a formal regulatory body through the subject committees in their respecitve Academies of Sciences, the English language does not have such officil regulatory body. Government agencies can advice what name is to use for the government publications, true, but they do not define what usage is "correct". Therefore, there is no mention of the term "correct" vs "incorrect" name per se in our naming conventions. This is because there is no authority that defines "correct" in general. English encyclopedias and dictionaries choose the names for their article's entries based on the common usage. How exactly they gauge it is best to ask them, not me. Our naming conventions also uses the term "most commonly used". The latest editions of Britannica uses Kiev as well as the major media, which confirms that this is the prevailing usage for now. Wikipedia should reflect that as well as prescribed by NC. I specifically studied the usage of the names of all major Ukrainian cities in the major media. I found that most commonly used names of all Oblast centers except Kiev and Odessa are based on the transliteration from their Ukrainian language names. I also found out that those changed relatively recently. Some time ago, Kharkov was a predominant name and English Encyclopedias used it as their main entry. Their most recent editions (eg. Britannica 2005) use Kharkiv that just shows that encyclopedias reflect the change in usage and media search for last 5 years confirm that (unlike for last 10 years). Note that not only EB changed their entry but the WP too. Moreover, I initiated the renaming of that article. --Irpen 21:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ufff... Over and over again. Irpen, try to be more iventive. Take my geographical atlas for reference. It uses Kyyiv and is not less authoritive than Brittanica. I will provide you with ISBN number when I get a chance. Also consult with Mikka about how true is authority of Brittanica. Take U.S. Board on Geographic Names which IS official regulatory body that DEFINES proper use of foreign names. And forget about "major media". It is NOT authotority. Mistake made by major media is just a major mistake. Prevailing mistake. Which is rather because people were used to it. Now times are changing. What article are you talking about?--Bryndza 22:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

US BGN only defines use for those who accept BGN as an authority setting standards. They cannot define what regular folks and media are supposed to use. If you work for the US government, then naturally you would be using BGN conventions in the documents you generate. If you work for the paper, you'd be using that paper's manual of style, which usually has no relation to BGN or any other body's conventions. If you are a Joe Shmoe of average intelligence, one who could care less about BGN, AP, or Reuters, you'd probably look the word up in the dictionary or in an encyclopedia, which may have no relation to mass media and BGN as well. The difference between BGN/government and mass media/dictionaries/encyclopedias is that the former tends to standardize usage for consistency and efficient workflow (as they deal with the general set of geographic names), while the latter represent common usage (which deals with isolated members of the general set of geographic names). When people get used to new spelling (with the help of government documents, mass media gradually converting to new usage, or by other means), then the common usage will change, too. At which time changes will be made to newspapers' manuals of style, dictionaries, and encyclopedias (Wikipedia included). Are we back to square one yet?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have an atlas I bought this year published in 2005. It uses Kiev. I can also give you an ISBN. What will it prove? --Irpen 22:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It only proves that you bought bad atlas :). Mine is official edition by National Geographic. They don't play with names. And U.S. Board on Geographic Names is still not an authority to you?--Bryndza 22:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To me its all a violation of WP:POINT... Зачем вам это надо? Главное, что ВЫ от этого получите. По Украински Киев всегда будет Киïв а не Кiєв, ну вроде и все...ИМХО википедия требует кучу усилий, и вместо того, чтобы по настоящему помочь, вы занимаитесь полной х...нёй. Наверно вам без разницы Moscow или Moskva, Finland или Soumi ну а зачем тогда Kiev менять?... Право слово, смешно на вас смотреть... --Kuban Cossack 18:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prevailing usage

USBGN is an authority to recommend the name usage to the US government and not to the Encyclopedias and other reference sources. The latter choose the convention they use as they see would serve best to the interest of their readers.

Since, unlike the Ukrainian, the English language lacks a formal authority that defines what is "correct" both names can be considered "correct" and none are a "mistake". The issue at hand is not choosing the correct name (they are both "correct") but the name which satisfies the naming policy adopted by a particular source. Most dictionaries and encyclopedias (including WP) base their policy on the prevailing usage.

The change of a policy is a possibility, true enough. Anyone can try to change any Wikipedia policy when one finds it deficient. Personally, I find it wise to give deference to the prevailing usage but that is a side point. That our NC say so simply means that this is what most Wikipedians also agree with but policy do evolve with time, I give you that.

Moreover, the usage evolves too. When Kharkiv beat Kharkov in English usage, I supported the respective change in WP. This has not happened for Kiev. Whether it will happen or not, there is no way to know now. --Irpen 22:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I undestand your points better now. And how would we define prevailing usage? Google? Kyjiv+Kyiv+Kyyiv (6.101.000) over Kiev (40.500.000) gives prevalance to Kiev no doubts. But proportion 1:6,6 puts non-Kiev versions on strong grounds. May be enough to start citing both names in parallel on WP? And we hardly need to change WP policy for this--Bryndza 23:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again guys. Yes, conforming to the BGN/PCGN (which spans USA and Britain, btw) is not mandatory, in the sense that conforming to the safety regulations is mandatory. Still, it's what the solid product of the sort will relate to.

Now, for the well-known, traditional English uses. It's obvious that for the East European names there are quite a few of such, everything other just follows the normative. Let's precise the set of objects which conform to this. Kharkiv isn't a problem anymor, AFAIU. That leaves us with Kiev, Odessa, Moscow, Ukraine? Yury Tarasievich 08:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And Dnipro/Dniepr I suppose.--Bryndza 22:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also Crimea and Eupatoria, but since both are not close to the Russian names, I guess no one would object.

These (+Balaclava, Alma, Sebastopol) might get mentioned relatively often in texts on Crimean War. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yury Tarasievich (talk • contribs) 07:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

But seriously, there may be only a couple of others if any. The idea is that WP:NC(UE) supersedes the transliteration rules, that is of course if there is a most commonly used name in English which in view of the relative obscurity of Ukraine among the English speakers is usually not the case. Very few UA related geographic names have any significant usage in English and the list above is almost exhaustive, I suppose.

So, all the articles on all the other Ukrainian locations have to be titled by their transliterated Ukrainian name and the names of all such locations in the article's text should always be a Ukrainian one, at least in the modern context. --Irpen 22:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is what we have now in WP. Isn't it? But I still don't understand why would someone object to putting alternative name spelling in () beside those few examples listed above. Like this: Kyyiv (Kiev). Very often some editors insistantly revert it to single form (Kiev).--Bryndza 17:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are no more reasons to include both names here as when writing Lviv (Lvov) or Kharkiv (Kharkov). Perhaps it is even more like writing Lvov (Lviv) and Kharkov (Kharkiv) as your suggestion implies to use a less common name first and the more common name as a secondary one (in parentheses). I could accept Lvov (Lviv) in say Lvov-Sandomierz Offensive or Lwow in Ruthenian Voivodeship because that's what English sources devoted to this time period persistently use. I would object, however, not only to Lvov (Lviv) but also to Lviv (Lvov) if used on the whim without a valid reason. Same applies to your favored Kyyiv (Kiev) if used generically without a specific reason. The article's topic being Postal codes and Kyyiv being used by Ukrposhta may be a valid reason for a particular article. But there is no reason to change a common name for an uncommon one in various articles arbitrarily. The rule of thumb is: use a conventional name by default and justify the usage of a non-conventional name by a particular context. --Irpen 04:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)