Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

At the risk of opening a can of worms, do we consider it suitable to spell the name of the administrative centre of the Ukrainian People's Republic (1917–1921) and Ukrainian State (1918) as Kyiv? I've been writing a bit about the 1917–1921 period in Ukraine (see User:Nederlandse Leeuw/1918), and I'm not sure what to call it. I've seen some inconsistent spelling in other enwiki articles on the period as well, and I do not think it's a good idea to change everything unilaterally. So far, I've just pragmatically used "Kiev (modern Kyiv)" as a workaround for texts I've written myself, so as not to upset anyone.

I've got three arguments in favour of Kyiv:

1. The second rule of thumb of WP:KYIV, From 24 August 1991 (Ukrainian independence), Kyiv is likely to be appropriate, but proceed with caution., suggests that the name's spelling as "Kyiv is likely to be appropriate" in a time when Ukraine is an independent state;
2. the official UPR (Central Rada and Directorate) and Ukr State (Hetmanate) documents were (almost always) written in Ukrainian and usually issued with Київ (Kyiv) as the identified place of issuance / publication (see all pages in UkWikisource Категорія:Офіційні документи України 1917-1920); and
3. the fact that the Ukrainian People's Republic (UPR) enjoyed significant but not universal international recognition;

Therefore, would it be appropriate for us to spell the city's name as 'Kyiv' in reference to events in (part of) this 1917–1921 period? I think the answer is 'Yes', but I'd like some input before making changes, given the well-known controversies over the name's spelling, and because the post-24 August 1991 situation is not completely the same as the 1917–1921 situation(s).

However, there are some possible counter-arguments to be considered. The first rule of thumb of WP:KYIV probably does not apply to the 1917–1921 period, because unlike the October 1995 Resolution of the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology No. 5, or the 1996 Constitution of Ukraine Article 20 (which explicitly stipulates that Столицею України є місто Київ.; [The] capital of Ukraine [is the] city of Kyiv.), I have not been able to find such an explicit stipulation in official UPR, Central Rada, Directorate, Ukr State, Hetmanate etc. documents that Kyiv was to be considered the country's capital. E.g. uk:Київ#Українська революція states 20 листопада 1917 року вона III Універсалом проголосила Українську Народну Республіку, а Київ — її столицею. On 20 November 1917, it [the Central Rada] proclaimed [the] Ukrainian People's Republic by [the] Third Universal, and Kyiv [as] her capital., but the text does not mention 'Kyiv' except in У Киіві 7 листопаду (ноября) 1917 року. ([published] in Kyiv on 7 November (November) in [the] year 1917.)

Similarly, the Четвертий Універсал Української Центральної Ради (The Fourth Universal of the Ukrainian Central Rada) of 22 January 1918, which is the UPR's declaration of independence from Russia, makes no special mention of Kyiv, except as the place of publication: Київ, друкарня Р. К. Лубковського (Kyiv, R. K. Lubkovsky printing house). It seems that state officials at the time did not consider it important to explicitly define the capital; noting where a document was published seemed sufficient context to them to indicate where the state institutions of Ukraine were located / resided / operated. (This makes Ukraine no different from most former and current countries in the world; explicitly defining your capital or seat of government is a relatively modern phenomenon, rarely seen before 1900).

There might be a legal hiatus for the Ukrainian State (29 April – 14 December 1918), because it never received as much international recognition as the UPR, as it was essentially a German protectorate (established by the German-backed Hetman Coup in violation of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (Ukraine–Central Powers)). This may partially undermine the 3rd argument, even though most foreign states continued to recognise the UPR (Central Rada / Directorate).

The first time I see any stipulation in an official document of Ukraine in Ukrainian stipulating its capital is in, perhaps somewhat ironically, the 1937 Constitution of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Стаття 145. Столицею Української Радянської Соціалістичної Республіки є місто Київ.; Article 145. [The] capital of [the] Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic [is the] city of Kyiv. (Evidently, the 1996 Constitution article 20 is an amendment of this 1937 Constitution article 145, given the very similar phrasing). But obviously Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union at the time, and thus not an independent state, so neither rule of thumb seems to apply to Soviet Ukraine.

Therefore, only the second rule of thumb, the independence requirement, might apply to (part of) the 1917–1921 period. Similarly to the second rule of thumb, I think we should proceed with caution. If we do agree the spelling Kyiv is likely to be appropriate, then we should probably set the boundary from 22 January 1918 (declaration of independence by the Fourth Universal) until the Treaty of Riga of 18 March 1921, which legally and practically ended the UPR's existence (we don't have to count the Government of the Ukrainian People's Republic in exile).

I do not feel too strongly about this issue, and I hope we can keep this friendly and amicable. There's already a war on; we don't need another editwar over this as well, so let's see if we can come to a suitable agreement beforehand. If it's better to just keep it like "Kiev (modern Kyiv)" for now, that's also fine with me. NLeeuw (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That is an impressive amount of research for an issue you don't feel strongly about! The point of the 1991 date, as far as I'm aware, is not just there being "An independent Ukranian state" but specifically there being "The modern independent Ukranian state"; The same state that has mandated the English names of Ukrainian cities should be systematically transcribed from Ukranian rather than Russian. The Ukrainian People's Republic and Ukrainian State are unambigously historical topics, these states are over 100 years old(!) For unambiguously historical topics the consensus is to continue using "Kiev", and that consensus will remain until a new RfC supersedes it. (Hopefully soon; There are more than enough silly conventions on Wikipedia without having to call every major Ukranian city 2 different names depending on time period) Hecseur (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that this would just end up being more complicated than it's worth unfortunately. Especially given how messy the current use russian for historic system is.

That said google scholar suggests 'Kyivan' is roughly used as much as 'Keivan' in the last year or two

It's also worth noting that these discussions are never just about Kyiv and end up being applied to most Ukrainian cities —blindlynx 13:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If by "current system" you mean the moratorium on Kyiv usage, you're not alone. It just doesn't make sense.

Also nowhere here it is stated that we have moratorium on Odesa or Kharkiv usage but still somehow I am having troubles changing these cities' names to the proper Ukrainian spellings as well. This is just ridiculous. Kyiv citizen (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I could not agree more about the need to revisit the aforementioned RfC. I am a relatively new member of the community, and just noticed this particular thread. Hecseur please jump in the discussion thread right below this one if you feel like it. The current moratorium on pre-1991 Kyiv usage doesn't solve anything and just introduces more confusion and inconsistencies in articles. Kyiv citizen (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

At the Paris Peace Conference, the head of the Ukrainian delegation used French. On 10 and 25 February 1919, he spelled the name as 'Kiev', but on 11 April of the same year, he used 'Kyiv' (link). A map presented at the conference by Ukraine labeled the capital as 'Kyiv (Kiev)'. A note sent to the Entente powers on 4 September 1919, also written in French, reverted to the spelling 'Kiev' (p.174), the same spelling was used in documents issued on 17 February 1920 (p.580), 13 April 1920 (p.463), 10 June 1920 (p.329), 16 July 1920 (p.519), 3 August 1920 (p.190), and 24 June 1921 (p.400). Kelob2678 (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I am editing Soviet Figure Skating Championships, which identify the cities where each event took place. The tables tend to use the cities' names as they were used at the time (for example, Leningrad instead of Saint Petersburg). Should the same apply to Ukrainian cities? Someone had already changed Kiev to Kyiv, but what about Odessa and Dnipropetrovsk? Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

• See Talk:History of Kyiv (1362–1657)#Requested move 5 October 2025.
• In a nutshell: this discussion was very balanced and nuanced, and served as a helpful confirmation of our WP:KYIV/WP:KIEV guideline, plus a clarification on some specifics that could guide us in similar questions (in accordance with For any edge cases, or in case of doubt or dispute, an RfC or move request debate is recommended.)
• The spelling Kyiv was retained in the title per WP:TITLECON with History of Kyiv and other specified exceptions in the running text, while the spelling Kiev was used by default in the running text and several specified situations that also called for it.
• This is all based on existing policies, guidelines, conventions etc. that apply in specific circumstances that not everyone may be aware of. Therefore, after an extra introduction, I'll quote below the explanation that was accepted in the discussion as the consensus not to change existing spellings in either the title or running text as I had generally established it.

Introduction

A few weeks ago, I wrote the article History of Kyiv (1362–1657), which was predominantly a translation of uk:Київ у литовсько-польську добу (literally Kyiv in the Lithuanian–Polish period). I took the abbreviation "KLP" as working title while I would decide on a definitive title later. The reason I decided not to go for Lithuanian–Polish period is that by far most readers and editors of English Wikipedia would likely be confused, and try to change the title to Polish–Lithuanian period in order to conform with the well-known article Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, which wasn't established until 1569, and was preceded by a Lithuanian-only period; the scope of this article was from the Battle of Blue Waters (variously dated to 1362 or 1363) until the end of the Khmelnytsky Uprising (variously dated to 1654 or 1657). I opted for the widest periodisation and to mention that in the title; the best decision seemed to be to combine that with the main article title History of Kyiv, because it was essentially a specific chapter in the city's history.

Clarification

While I disagreed with the proposed move (to change the title to History of Kiev (1362–1657)), it's a good question, which I carefully considered while making this translation. (Some edit summaries explain my thinking in this regard). The short story is that this article is a chapter of the main article History of Kyiv, and per WP:TITLECON, this article title should be consistent with that of the main article. In the main text, its spelling should conform to WP:KIEV/WP:KYIV. Therefore, the Russian-derived pre-1991 English spelling Kiev is used by default:

• Whenever the city is mentioned in a sentence in a historic period before 1991: The complex nature of urban life in Kiev was a consequence of the city's border location.
• When an in-line link is made to an article with this spelling in the title, e.g. The city of Kiev was still the capital of the Principality of Kiev until 1471, and thereafter of the Kiev Voivodeship.
• When a referenced book was published in the city before 1991, even if the original language is Ukrainian, or when quoting a trans-title from a Russian-language source, the spelling Kiev will be maintained as in the original, e.g. Volodymyr Antonovych, Pylyp Oleksiyovich Ternovsky, ed. (1874). Сборникъ матеріаловъ для исторической топографіи Кіева и его окрестностей (у III розділах) [Collection of materials for the historical topography of Kiev and its surroundings (in three sections)] (in Russian). Vol. Бопланъ. Ок. 1640 г. / Отдѣлъ II. Извѣстія очевидцевъ, современниковъ и иностранныхъ писателей (Beauplan. Around 1640 / Section II. Accounts from eyewitnesses, contemporaries, and foreign writers). Kiev: E. Ya. Fedorov Printing House. p. 45.

On the other hand, the modern spelling is used in the following cases:

• Whenever reference is made to where buildings or structures which have been preserved until after 1991 are located, e.g. ‘Nativity of the Mother of God’ (now located in the city of Ivankiv, Kyiv Oblast).
• When an in-line link is made to an article about a preserved building or structure, whose title contains the post-1991 spelling, e.g. During this period (1470), the stone architecture of the Kievan Rus' era was rebuilt and restored, in particular Saint Sophia Cathedral, Kyiv and the Dormition Cathedral, Kyiv Pechersk Lavra. (Note that Kievan Rus' is spelt like that article's title, Kievan Rus').
• The same goes for links to literary texts, such as the Kyiv Caves Patericon (which has WP:TITLECON with Kyiv Pechersk Lavra). On the other hand, the Kiev Psalter of 1397 has the spelling Kiev, and it has been kept that way.
• When an in-line link is made to an article about some non-building phenomenon that still exists today under the city's modern spelling, e.g. Main article: Coat of arms of Kyiv.
• When quoting a trans-title or translated citation from a Ukrainian-language source, e.g. Ivan Ushakov. City Hall on a fragment in the 1695 book «Креслення міста Києва…» ("Drawings of the city of Kyiv"). Or: Natalia Bilous (2008): "It can be assumed that about three thousand Kyivan residents lived in Podil at that time. If we add to this the population of the Pechersk town and the Upper Suburb, the total number of inhabitants of Kyiv in the middle of the 17th century would be approximately 4,500." This is consistent with the WP:Principle of minimal change.

I understand this may be confusing, but I didn't make up these rules. I've tried as much as I can to adhere to existing guidelines and conventions, and thereby bring balance between past and present.

The clarification above serves as a helpful guide for future cases. It's probably too long to be added as a footnote under WP:KYIV/WP:KIEV, so I've opted to post it here on the talk page for reference. NLeeuw (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The key question is, what word do modern scholars refer to when they refer to the city in a historical context?

The current consensus was reached in 2020. Given that Kyiv for the modern city didn't really reach its current near-universal status in English until the 2022 Russian invasion, it's not necessarily obvious to the answer to that question is the same now as it was in 2020. It would be valuable to check some post-2022 articles to see whether usage in a historical context has changed significantly. Kahastok talk 13:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:AGEMATTERS is, of course, a relevant point here. As an example,

• Raffensperger, Christian; Ostrowski, Donald (2023). The Ruling Families of Rus. Reaktion Books. ISBN 978-1-78914-715-5.

... always write Kyiv and Kyivan Rus'. But we need to go by statistics, not by anecdotes. Usually, Google Ngrams and Google Scholar search results are used as an informal measure of what the WP:COMMONNAME is. I haven't checked recently, but whenever this question comes up at Talk:Kievan Rus' (where it is the subject of about 50% of talk page sections), Kievan Rus' and Kiev still have a significant edge over Kyivan Rus' and Kyiv in pre-1991 contexts. I would advice editors who favour the latter spelling (myself included) to be patient. I am confident that the shift in English-language literature will eventually lead to a majority favouring the modern spelling as default in running text. For now, we should follow existing guidelines as explained above. Good day, NLeeuw (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

I've brought up the topic of disambiguation within raions and hromadas before but the discussion did not achieve any results. It mostly focused on the disambiguation of settlements in a raion – which is much needed and should once again be discussed – though it is obvious that the solution is disambiguation by hromada in these situations. This time I also want to consider disambiguation within hromadas, which is much more complicated. Since the last discussion, I've encountered many articles that require this; turns out, it is not uncommon to find populated places of the same name within one hromada, and there are multiple ways to go about this:

a) Disambiguate by starosta okruh. For example, Volodymyrivka, Shchaslyvka starosta okruh, Domanivka settlement hromada, Voznesensk Raion, Mykolaiv Oblast vs Volodymyrivka, Volodymyrivka starosta okruh, Domanivka settlement hromada, Voznesensk Raion, Mykolaiv Oblast. Whether listing the hromada, raion, and oblast is necessary is also debatable and strongly depends on the situation (e.g., if there's a starosta okruh and/or hromada of the same name somewhere else), though in my opinion just the starosta okruh should suffice in most cases (Volodymyrivka, Shchaslyvka starosta okruh vs Volodymyrivka, Volodymyrivka starosta okruh). Regardless of the details, this method is most similar to the current system, though unfortunately cannot be universally applied as not every hromada has starosta okruhs, and sometimes settlements are not assigned to starosta okruhs (e.g., two Mykolaivkas in Hrodivka settlement hromada: one in Novoekonomichne starosta okruh and another not belonging to any).

b) Disambiguate by settlement type (city, rural settlement, or village). For example, Zachativka (village) vs Zachativka (rural settlement). This stands out because WP:UAPLACE does not allow disambiguation by anything other than location as of right now. However, I think this method also has its place in situations when a hromada has no starosta okruhs and the two settlements of the same name happen to be of different types. Though, it's easy for this situation to get complicated as well: Zachativka, Horlivka Raion, Donetsk Oblast is a rural settlement too, so then extra disambiguation may be needed for the previously mentioned rural settlement, e.g., Zachativka (rural settlement), Volnovakha Raion, Donetsk Oblast.

c) Disambiguate by pre-2020 local council. For example, Novobakhmutivka, Novobakhmutivka Village Council vs Novobakhmutivka, Soloviove Village Council. Certain local councils served as administrative divisions but were abolished and merged into new hromadas in 2020. Despite their abolishment, they may be the only practical way to disambiguate settlements of the same name and type in a hromada that does not have starosta okruhs where the two settlements used to be administered by different pre-2020 local councils.

d) Disambiguate by Codifier of administrative-territorial units and territories of territorial communities. This is the only way I can think of to disambiguate settlements of the same name and type in a hromada that does not have starosta okruhs where the two settlements used to be administered by the same pre-2020 local council, though I'm not aware of any such examples. Each settlement and administrative division is assigned a unique code under this system, which provides certain disambiguation. However, I'm hesitant to suggest applying this system for everything because the codes are not memorable nor easily recognizable.

The way I see it, some sort of combination of the above would be the best option for disambiguating settlements in the same hromada. This would lead to a complex system that would only apply in specific cases but the Ukrainian Wikipedia has implemented what seems to be a combination of the first three, so something similar can be used here. I may also be overcomplicating certain aspects, so any other suggestions are welcome as well.

While what I've proposed above would introduce complexity, I would also like to propose simplifying the currently existing system. This is a separate issue though it is also related to disambiguation. As of right now, "If there is more than one settlement with a certain name in an oblast," disambiguate by raion only, but if "there is also a settlement of that name in another oblast", disambiguate by raion and oblast. Having these two lines made sense before the 2020 administrative reform, when there were multiple raions of the same name (e.g., two Mykolaiv raions, one in Mykolaiv Oblast and another in Lviv Oblast). However, this is no longer the case, so I propose disambiguation by raion only in both cases (e.g., Pokrovske, Mykolaiv Raion instead of Pokrovske, Mykolaiv Raion, Mykolaiv Oblast since there's only one Mykolaiv Raion).

Linking this back to disambiguation within raions I've mentioned in the beginning, in those cases we could similarly disambiguate by hromada only, unless additional disambiguation is necessary (e.g., Myrne settlement hromada, Donetsk Oblast vs Myrne settlement hromada, Zaporizhzhia Oblast); then we can simplify nightmarishly long titles such as Dunaivtsi, Novodunaivtsi settlement hromada, Kamianets-Podilskyi Raion, Khmelnytskyi Oblast to a much shorter Dunaivtsi, Novodunaivtsi settlement hromada. In the previous discussion, it has also been suggested to trim the hromada type (urban, settlement, or rural) from the title, but I wouldn't support this as the full names can help with disambiguation in certain cases (e.g., "Mykhailivka hromada" could refer to Mykhailivka settlement hromada or Mykhailivka rural hromada in Zaporizhzhia Oblast), and WP:UAPLACE seems to encourage the use of full names for administrative divisions.

To summarize, as part of this overhaul/update of the disambiguation system, I propose 1) the inclusion of disambiguation within raions (by hromada, and oblast if necessary), 2) the inclusion of disambiguation within hromadas (by starosta okruh / type / pre-2020 local council / something else), and 3) the simplification of the existing disambiguation within oblasts (trimming oblast names from titles in all such cases). Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 11:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Back in 2022 I wrote: "All the Wikipedia articles regarding raions I've stumbled upon are barely 2-3 line stubs...the relevant encyclopedic knowledge on Ukrainian subdivisions exists solely at the oblast level." This is clearly not the case anymore. Between this and the raion mergers being much less recent, I see no issue in disambiguating solely based on raions at this point (where possible).

In 2023 I wrote regarding disambiguation by hromada, referring to the earlier comment on raions: "That arguement then was regarding disambiguation by raions; it even more acutely applies here, where instead of 2 line stubs there is ZERO information on nearly ALL hromadas on Wikipedia." Many hromadas are yet to have articles today. The scope of the articles that do exist still hasn't approached qualifying them as a useful sole tool for disambiguation to an uninformed reader. Doubly so for starosta okruhs, which are nary mentioned beyond a handful of articles, let alone have any encyclopedic coverage thereof.

As in the past, I still view including the hromada type as not WP:CONCISE.

Out of the options suggested, I do prefer disambiguating by starosta okruh when necessary (while including the raion to specify a discernible region). When that is not an option, then b) is preferable. Option c) is a non-starter; using defunct administrative divisions is not a helpful way to disambiguate. If the post-2020 raions are to be viewed as a valid way to disambiguate settlements, then pre-2020 administrative divisions should not; you can't have it both ways.

This is how I'd disambiguate the examples mentioned:

In the case presented in point a), the two villages are the only ones who share this name in Voznesensk raion. Disambiguating by starosta okruh is unavoidable:

• Volodymyrivka, Shchaslyvka starosta okruh, Domanivka settlement hromada, Voznesensk Raion, Mykolaiv Oblast → Volodymyrivka, Shchaslyvka starosta okruh, Voznesensk Raion
• Volodymyrivka, Volodymyrivka starosta okruh, Domanivka settlement hromada, Voznesensk Raion, Mykolaiv Oblast → Volodymyrivka, Volodymyrivka starosta okruh, Voznesensk Raion

In the case presented in point b), disambiguation by settlement type is unavoidable, as you mentioned:

• Zachativka (village) → Zachativka (village), Volnovakha Raion
• Zachativka (village) → Zachativka (rural settlement), Volnovakha Raion
• Zachativka, Horlivka Raion, Donetsk Oblast → Zachativka, Horlivka Raion

The case presented in point c) is far trickier. WP:PLACEDAB does not provide guidance when "[using] the name of a smaller administrative division (such as a state or province) instead" fails. As I understand, it's purely up to consensus in this case.

A plausible solution I've considered could be naming a nearby larger settlement:

• Novobakhmutivka, Soloviove Village Council → Novobakhmutivka, near Ocheretyne
• Novobakhmutivka, Novobakhmutivka Village Council → Novobakhmutivka, near Verkhniotoretske

I can't say I'm a fan of this solution, nor do I know if there is any precedence to disambiguating in this way. However, I do believe that for someone familiar with local geography, this could be a helpful way to disambiguate the two settlements. While point d) offers a valid way to distinguish the settlements, I hardly think including something like "UA14160190130054690" in an article title would be helpful to a reader. A better solution than the one I proposed could be found in previous precedence from cases of failure of WP:PLACEDAB, if such cases exist. Hecseur (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Seeing that there haven't been any comments for a while, should we request an RfC or a third opinion? Not sure what's the best course of action here but I would like to see the issue resolved. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 09:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe for these sorts of consensus-based guidelines an RFC wouldn't be remiss. Hecseur (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I propose we remove 'Chernobyl' from the list of exceptions on this page. Since the spelling 'Chernobyl' is currently supported by the primary policy WP:COMMONNAME, the explicit exemption is redundant. Removing it would streamline the guideline, and make it easier to update the article title should the common English name shift to 'Chornobyl' in the future. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Chernobyl isn't mentioned here as a specific exemption but rather as an example for a city that falls within the guideline. The guideline is a relevant reminder on when to apply WP:COMMONNAME and when to apply WP:USENATIVE. It's written as a reflection of current consensus to prevent confusion, it's not meant to be future-proof; Having unique designations specifically for Kyiv certainly isn't future-proof either (as historical use has been steadily increasing in English as I've seen), but that's not the point in them existing. The point is to help people determine the agreed name to use given the existence of alternative names, which it accomplishes fine enough. Hecseur (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh I forgot about this. Yeah, in retrospect, this is a dumb request, now that I know policy much better than this. Never mind. Grilledcheeseisgreat ^✉ 19:41, 5 June 2026 (UTC)