This is an archive of past discussions about FC Dynamo Kyiv. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Why don't we move this page into FC Dynamo Kyiv to follow the convention as well as to reflect the team's official Ukrainian name?AlexPU
I was going to say be bold!, but I notice that page already exists as a redirect to this one. It'll need a little planning to avoid double-redirects. -- Arwel 00:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, done. There are a lot of single-redirects, if you want to fix them, but no double-redirects. -- Arwel 01:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Death Match
Can anyone add some information about so-called "Death Match"?
As far as I know it happened during the fascist occupation of Kiev (Kyiv) in times of 2nd World War.
Then a team of German Luftwaffe best players arranged football match against Dynamo Kyiv. Ukrainian player won and after the game they were sent to concentration camp.
Does anyone have more info? That's really interesting and tragic event that, I'm sure, must be included into description if Dynamo's history.
See the section I've just added, and the external link to the Australian National Centre for History Education - it's a tragic story. -- Arwel (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe the film 'Escape To Victory' is partially based upon these events, obviously with a happier ending and predominantly English players (and Sylvestor Stallone!). I'll see if i can get some sort of evidence for this but it would be an interesting point to make.--Cavs17:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not think the article need the current notable players list since it has the roster now. Feel free to revert if you disagree. -- ILDuceMas15:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
As a part of the improvement drive, more redlinks in the player roster should be filled out. Especially all players who have represented a national team. Punkmorten16:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Page title
"FC Dynamo Kyiv" seems an odd choice for the title since it sits halfway between a full English translation ("FC Dynamo Kiev") and a transliteration from Ukrainian into English ("FK Dinamo Kyiv"). What's the reasoning for this? Unless the current title is official in some way wouldn't it be better to have it as "FC Dynamo Kiev", since this is the English Wiki? -- Hux05:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Your initial reasoning is correct; the club is officially known as and referred to as FC Dynamo Kyiv (see Uefa.com for instance, [1]).
Please take a look at the article.[2] You have cut out over tha half of it, Squad, Honors, Famous Players. I just reverted it in order to return the lost information. Sorry for the inconvinience. MaksKhomenko19:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
3 months after the match M. Korotkykh was arrested for being a Soviet agent and died at the hands of the Gestapo. 10 members of the team were incarcerated at the Syretz concentration camp near Babi Yar. After a factory was destroyed in February 1943 by Soviet partizans the commandant of the Syretz camp - Paul Radomski, punished this partisan action by executing every third camp inmate. As a result on the 23rd of February 1943 the Ukrainian players Ivan Kuzmenko, Oleksiy Klymenko and Mykola Trusevych were shot.
The Russian players - Sukhariev, Komarov, Tiuchev and Pustin were saved because through contacts in the Russian Church they were released from the camp to work in a brigade to repair the churches at the Kiev Caves Monastary. They survived the war.
Svyrydovsky and Honcharenko were also allowed out of the camp for a work detail repairing shoes and also survived the war.
The author of the myth - Lev Kassil, who coined the term "Death match" apparently collected his information from the words of the local Kievites (non-specific) and after it appeared in the local newspapers, spread like wildfire. The facts however soon took on a secondary nature.
All those who survived in the eyes of the Soviet establishment had became "neblagonadiozhnie" - unreliable - as they had lived under the occupation. Komarov was branded a traitor. Tymofeyev and Gundariov received 10 years in the Gulag camps for collaboration with the enemy. Pustin was regularly interogated by the KGB up until 1974.
The game was investigated by the German courts in Hamburg in 1974. The Press-secretary of the court, Rudiger Bagger, stated that: "The investigators studied the matter carefully which was given to them by their Ukrainian collegues. It was established that Mykola Trusevych, Ivan Kuzmenko and Oleksiy Klymenko died a significant period after the game, in the spring of 1943, in the concentration camp in Syretz. They were shot on the orders of the camp commandant. Their death was not related in any way to the football game". In 2005 the investigation was closed. --Bandurist07:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Weak Oppose Whilst I would support Kiev for the city, I will support Kyiv for the club. My reason for this is that both Dynamo Kiev and Dynamo Kyiv are in common usage, the media seem to use both (whereas for the city Kiev is much more common than Kyiv). As UEFA, and also the club itself use Kyiv I see no strong reason to change it. Moscow and Moskva is a bad example as these words have an entirely different pronounciation, same for Rapid Vienna (Wien), Bayern Munich (München), 1 FC Cologne (Köln) etc. (see below) John Hayestalk22:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone said the article's title should be follow by the registrated club's name. So Bayern München is the registrated name, why don't you put that into Bayern München? Because you think that München is not an English. Put that situation into Dynamo Kyiv, Kyiv's English is Kiev. Follow München's criteria, the club's name should be Dynamo Kiev, not Dynamo Kyiv. If Dynamo Kiev is rejected, that's means that English criteria will be demolished, so Bayern Munich would have to change name into Bayern München that time. RaymondGiggs08:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Something I should added, if someone thinks that Kyiv is an English, check their LATEST ENGLISH dictionary, or spelling check please. If they still regard a dictionary as an unreliable source. I could say nothing because he should be a barbarian. RaymondGiggs08:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Firstly comparing to München fails WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because that article does it one way, doesn't mean this one should, so please stop using that argument. Secondly, while a dictionary may be reliable, it is irrelevant in this case. This is about common usage, most of the time the dictionary may have the common usage, but it is not a guarantee of it. A much better source is British/American/Australian media as they will usually represent the common usage. John Hayestalk08:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the point he was trying to get across is that Bayern Munich follows Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English), in that it uses the common English spelling. The British media as highlighted by a google search, [3] e.g The Guardian [4], BBC [5], ESPNsoccernet [6], soccerbase [7], Reuters [8] use Dynamo Kiev as has FIFA: [9]. This is about WP guidelines stating English usage should be applied. In effect it is all about other stuff existing: because of guidelines and convention. Woodym55511:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - I don't see how we can take a survey on this, considering 'FC Dynamo Kyiv' is the official name of the club that has been used in all official Uefa notices and on the anglicized logo (see here for instance). If anything, the PFC CSKA Moscow link is incorrect and should be moved to PFC CSKA Moskva, but my bet is that making these moves (another example is Red Star Belgrade vs Crevna Zvezda Beograd etc) will only waste editors' time and will not accomplish anything meaningful. --Palffy23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
While I agree with the oppose, we do have to remember that common usage is more important than the offical club name, therefore stopping the changed to CSKA Moskva, it is only in this case I am opposing because Dynamo Kyiv is just as common as Dynamo Kiev, therefore other factors can be considered. John Hayestalk06:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment. This should be decided wp-wide, not for the particular club. On one hand, the "FC Dynamo Kyiv" is the name established in its own right. Do we translate names? I ma not sure. On one hand Kyivstar seems all right. On the other hand FC Bayern Munich not "FC Bayern Munchen" is the article name of the German club. I don't dislike either name but we should look at it more globally. Locally, I am leaning to oppose though. --Irpen23:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Regarding FC Bayern Munchen/FC Bayern Munich, I seem to recall running across a naming convention or MoS that mentioned that team specifically; but, I can't find it now. While being mentioned as the test case is not a compelling reason to prevent another WP:RM, it would be nice if anyone could point out that page, in order to maybe understand the rationale a bit more. Neier01:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose - Per John Hayes. The club is recognized in Europe (Uefa) as Kyiv, so be it that way. Changing the title to Kiev would only confuse readers. And secondly...the club's official English name is dynamo Kyiv and only Kyiv, no exceptions. Bogdan04:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The official name does not matter the WP:ENGLISH policy says use the common English name. Sverige is the official name of sweden but wikipeida lists it under the common English name. This is least confusing to English speakers. GameKeeper12:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Support - this comes down to a Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English) issue. The important point from that as has been noted above is common usage in english. A search of google "Dynamo Kyiv" and "Dynamo Kiev" shows many more news stories use "Dynamo Kiev" it is therefore preferable. It is alos preferable as it links the city to the club more readily in English as the City is undoubtedly better know as Kiev GameKeeper19:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Support - the link at the top takes you to the naming conventions. As Gamekeeper has pointed out the common english spelling is Dynamo Kiev. Whilst i accept that Dynamo Kyiv is a fairly common spelling in Europe, it is not as common as Kiev. Woodym55521:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, all clubs should be listed by their correct local name, which in most cases (including this one) would include the local name of the city, meaning Kyiv rather than Kiev. - MTC09:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support I have changed my mind, the large part of English speaking media organisations use Dynamo Kiev, see BBC [11], ITV [12], ESPN [13], Guardian [14]. Yes UEFA and the club itself use Kyiv, but common usage is more important than what the club want us to use. John Hayestalk12:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - for all the reasons on the other talk pages that User:KyleRGiggs has been brining this topic up on. The football club can stay as Kyiv while the city is Kiev, much like Roma/Rome and Sevilla/Seville. - fchd13:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Those cases are different though. The common english usage of those clubs is AS Roma and FC Sevilla respectively. I am yet to find one English language media source that calls it Dynamo Kyiv. (even if there is one, the vast majority still use Kiev). Woodym55519:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong support. The name commonly used in the English speaking world should be used. I have made a couple of searches on the BBC website for "Dynamo Kiev" and "Dynamo Kyiv". Both pop up but "Dynamo Kiev" brings up 52 pages of results [15] to 1 for "Dynamo Kyiv"[16]. Of course, things change over time but for now it seems that "Dynamo Kiev" is the common usage in English. --Malcolmxl520:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Malcolmx15, a Google search in the BBC website also gives 10 pages of hits for a misspelling of a Premiership footballer's first name, so you cannot cite a Google search as gospel. Anyway, it is true that in general, we should use the common name. However, at the moment we are very inconsistent about this (F.C. Internazionale Milano could be "Inter Milan", Legia Warsaw could be "Legia Warszawa", Sporting Clube de Portugal is commonly known as "Sporting Lisbon", etc.). In my opinion, if Wikipedia is inconsistent about an issue, then we should stay with the status quo at an article unless there is overwhelming evidence that the status quo is wrong. For example, if F.C. Internazionale Milano was located at A.C. Inter Milano for some reason, and a move was requested, I would agree (because that name is obviously incorrect). In this case, there is no such overwhelming evidence. ugen6404:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Well... I know that sometimes Inter Milan could be "Internazionale" in England. I don't know why so I don't want to redirect that to Inter Milan because Internazionale is also the common name. Sporting Clube de Portugal... I don't think it is a transition name, but it was known as "Sporting" only in Hong Kong. Well... the double-criteria of clubs' naming let me confused. RaymondGiggs06:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
In this case, there is no such overwhelming evidence. ugen64 There is overwhelming evidence in google news searches linked above and BBC searches and many others, see the links above. You say Google searches are not gospel, fine what would you suggest as an alternative? the BBC search with the incorrect name for an African footballer gives far more results if you use the correct name, they did get it wrong and they corrected it. In this case it is far more clear cut. GameKeeper23:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Neutral - On one hand, it is widely clear Dynamo Kyiv is solely a local name, and does not fit at all with the current naming convention. On the other hand, however, it is clear it's often pretty hard to find a unique English alternative for a club name (see F.C. Internazionale Milano, Sporting Clube de Portugal and many others). I would suggest to exempt football club articles from following the English-only naming convention for such reason, but this can be done only via a qualified consensus in an appropriate discussion. --Angelo22:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
And what is wrong with that?? This article relates to Ukraine and all Ukrainian users on Wikipedia should know which Ukraine-related articles are up for deleted, discussion, etc. And English is not my 1st language. So what? Am I not allowed to add my comment? —dima/talk/16:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, I think both English and Ukrainian are also not my first language? So I would like to state that "Article"'s name do not affected to the competitions' article. RaymondGiggs08:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
That is a discussion for the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) page and not here. This article has to follow the conventions laid down in Wikipedia guidelines until such time as they are amended by the consensus of the community. There has been a lot of discussion on that talk page and the main consensus is to keep that guideline. Woodym55512:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This existence of this survey proves that this is a controversial topic. The wikipedia community is wider than those who edit this article or indeed it is bigger than those who edit football and Ukraine related articles. Consensus is developed across the whole community. Anyway, as stated at the top polling is not a substitute for discussion. The closing admin will weigh up the arguments for and against taking into account peoples' reasoning. It is not an approval vote. Woodym55513:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all the points in the above message and yes, I know how Wikipedia works, I don't see how it disagrees with any of my messages though... - MTC13:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I was stating my opinion, just as everyone else is, I fail to see how only mine is irrelavent. - MTC14:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I never said your opinion was irrelavent. I have commented on most of the opposes so far. I commented on yours because you are voting oppose because you disagree with the guidelines. This is not the place to state a discussion on the convention, it is a place to enforce the current conventions. Woodym55519:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I sense we're starting to go in circles here. I think a discussion like this is a place to start a discussion on the convention. Enforcing the current convention would not require a survey, because if this is a place to enforce the conventions, they would provide a clear answer before the start of a survey. - MTC19:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. That is why i think it should be changed to the common English usage, and why i think this debate will not serve anything except going round in circles. I don't think we would be having this debate if the name wasn't discernible. Taking it to an extreme: if the name in the local language was Djksho Kjgs, (exaggeration i admit, but the point is valid i think) we wouldn't be having this conversation. In this hypothetical world would you support keeping that name? Woodym55520:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:BURO. It's true, the policy says this article should technically not be located here. (incidentally, where would you say it should be moved? FC Dynamo Kiev? FC Dinamo Kiev? Dynamo Kiev? Dinamo Kiev). But if there is a consensus that the article should in fact stay here, that trumps the policy. Think about it - a policy is essentially a generalization of consensus about an issue (so if there is a separate consensus that supports violating a policy in a specific case, that is what we should follow). ugen6404:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
That is true. Currently there is no consensus on that page. In this case, as peejay states there is little difference between the two names. Whilst i do think that the English version should be used, as that is what most people will know it as, i think consensus should prevail. The requested move itself has been hijacked by different sets of users from different projects who will not edit the article in the future. It would set an awkward precedent if it remains as it is. That being said we would have to vote on all clubs whose name could be taken differently such as Bayern, Moscow, Inter etc. We will have to see what happens. Woodym55522:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I just found this link wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Sports_teams. This is section seems very relevant. This is the English language Wikipedia so generally the regular English name should be used. For example, use Bayern Munich rather than FC Bayern München, Red Star Belgrade rather than Crvena Zvezda and so on. Note the English name is not always the 'authentic' name used on the club crest and so on. For example, Sporting Clube de Portugal are always called Sporting Lisbon in the English-speaking world.. This suggests Dynamo Kiev should be the name of this article. GameKeeper12:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Not always the case. Even in the example you cited Bayern Munich rather than FC Bayern München would be even better Bavaria Munich. I say leave it alone. The official state spelling is Kyiv, the club is known as Kyiv. It is only a matter of time before Kyiv becomes the accepted spelling in English. 15 years ago you would nopt have seen it at all. Now one third of all web sites use this spelling. --Bandurist15:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"It is only a matter of time before Kyiv becomes the accepted spelling in English". So you admit its currently not the accepted spelling. Therefore we should use Kiev. John Hayestalk15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"...Bayern München would be even better Bavaria Munich..." You misunderstand the example. 'Bayern Munich' is the commonly used name in the English speaking press, as is "Dynamo Kiev". Try searching sites such as the bbc or google news UK. GameKeeper18:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Assessment
I have assessed this as Start class. For this to become B-Class, it needs some work. It needs a lead section that conforms to WP:LEAD. It needs some more references, any statement likely to be challenged needs a reference. See the featured articles at WP:FOOTY for an example of how to structure the article. Well done so far. Woodym55521:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
And probably needs also a thorougher historical section, as the current one covers extensively solely the "death match" and a bribery scandal (maybe not even that relevant to be described in its own subsection) but does not say a single word about any other achievement and event in the club history. --Angelo22:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with the 'High' assessment - individual leading clubs should be 'Medium'. Otherwise we should have several hundred 'Highs' which devalues the currency. TerriersFan23:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was — surprise — move. We have fairly clear policies and guidelines, WP:NC#Sports teams which is based on WP:COMMONNAME, and they are clear in this case. I am aware that the votecount below is in vicinity of 10:1, but we don't do votecount, sorry — most of the keeping arguments are along the lines of WP:NOTAGAIN, WP:PERABOVE, and "we should use official names" — however, we don't. See DeLarge's post below for thorough arguments. Duja►10:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the English language Wikipedia so generally the regular English name should be used. For example, use Bayern Munich rather than FC Bayern München, Red Star Belgrade rather than Crvena Zvezda and so on. Note the English name is not always the 'authentic' name used on the club crest and so on. For example, Sporting Clube de Portugal are always called Sporting Lisbon in the English-speaking world.
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Strongly oppose. This was discussed only a month ago, with no consensus. Kyiv is becoming more and more common as the English transliteration of the football team. Each case should be taken on its merits (for instance, I am in favour of using Crvena Zvezda, and Bayern Munchen). - fchd08:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose again - Even if München is kept at Munich, there is no double standard, as the current rule is mostly based on the frequency that they are used in English, and the two teams can have different acceptance rates in English. Even the two clubs' English home pages differ on the usage (it matches Wikipedia currently, as the Bayern home page says "Munich"; and the Dynamo home page says "Kyiv"). Neier09:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose again. My opinion is that local names should always be used. Also, for the record, I think it should be FK rather than FC. - MTC09:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The official domain could be because kyiv was already taken; so, that is a moot point. FIFA seems to use Kiev and Munich in articles, but Kyiv and München in the national league pages ([19], [20].) Neier22:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The website uses .kiev.ua because a .kyiv.ua domain was not registered when the football club's site was created. I think it was created not so long ago btw... —dima/talk/01:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Errrm... does anyone else besides me see this as a dead link?[21] At least they could have thought of another alternative if they really wanted to use Kyiv so no, it isn't a moot point. However, the links you provided are in the language of the country and we should use English so that is a moot point. Reginmund22:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Support mainly due to the naming convention outlined at the top. We must use the English speaking version. That is Dynamo Kiev. In the future we may all be using Kyiv, but who is to say that for certain. We shouldn't crystal ball and for the moment we must adhere to the guidelines.Woodym55522:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose this issue was discussed just a month ago, without consensus; it just seems to me that someone cares more about what the article is named, rather than in what condition it is (long/short, etc.) We should not look into such petty things as names, and rather work on expanding these articles. A whole lot of time is wasted on naming discussions, when we could've expanded and written great articles, which is, I presume, what we are supposed to be doing here.. writing an encyclopedia. —dima/talk/01:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose The club has issued enough english material to clearly demonstrate that its name will be Dynamo Kyiv in english Eduvalko06:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Support. I'm seeing two arguments to keep it where it is. (i) It's the "official" or "local" name of the club (using the website, the team crest, press releases, etc). This is irrelevent. It's well established on WP that the official name is not used, the "most common" name is (see WP:COMMONNAME). (ii) Dynamo Kyiv is commonly used in English. That's not what I'm seeing when I check. Googling "Dynamo Kiev" -wikipedia for English language results gets 541k hits. "Dynamo Kyiv" -wikipedia gets 156k hits. It's an even greater disparity searching Google News: 1,108 for "Dynamo Kiev" versus 107 for "Dynamo Kyiv" in the last month, and 13,200 for Kiev versus 1,300 for Kyiv in the Google News archives. So the usage of Kiev over Kyiv is a ratio of somewhere between three/four to one and ten to one. I'd also point out that if you look at the quality of the sources in the Google News searches, there are a lot of hits to "Kyiv" from manutd.com and goal.com, especially after the first page of results. "Kiev", on the other hand, is getting a wider spread of hits, and from better sources: Reuters, the Daily Telegraph, the BBC, the International Herald Tribune, USA Today, Fox News, The Scotsman, ABC News, etc. Seems clear to me that regardless of any claimed increase in Kyiv's popularity or usage, "Dynamo Kiev" is still overwhelmingly the most common English language term, and therefore the one that should be used as per WP:ENGLISH. --DeLarge11:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong oppose - on the club's English homepage, there are three instances of "Kyiv" before you even reach the main body of text. At no point on that page is "Kiev" used, apart from in the URL. - PeeJay23:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - English-language material produced by the club itself uses "Kyiv", and we should not go against local preferred usage. In regards to the counter-argument about Bayern München, English-language material produced by that club, when not referring to "FC Bayern", refers to "Munich" so the counter-argument does not have merit. -- Arwel (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong support for consistency with the city name, the English name. Otherwise move all other footbal clubs to their translit titles. --Kuban Cossack13:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
No, the English name is Kiev, whilst the Ukrainian tranliteration is Kyyiv, and Russian is Kiyev. So if anything move the Dynamo Kyyiv. --Kuban Cossack13:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
For Ukrainian it says to use the National system, not BGN/PCGN. It says to use the BGN/PCGN for Russian, and this isn't Russian. Ostap19:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Strongly oppose Dynamo Kyiv is the official name, used by the team and the FIFA. There is no other. It will only add to the confusion. What about Kyiv Post, I don't see any calls to rename it too. These are stable, generally established and accepted names no other equivalent exists. To rename it from what the team calls itself in English would be WP:OR, because it is not reflected by any English-language source. --Hillock6520:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
About WP:OR, that is not true. See any google search, the BBC, The Times and other reputable news sources all refer to Dynamo Kiev. That is not original research. That being said, i think we should let sleeping dogs lie and get on to building the encylopedia. Woodym55520:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Why would we use any other name than the official one? Check their English-language website [22] Check the official body FIFA [23] Why do we need to invent what is not there? BTW there is also Arsenal Kyiv, what about it? --Hillock6520:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Since when is Dynamo Kiev most common? Established how? What about WP:SOURCE, now we are going to ignore the team's and FIFA's websites and trust Google? And another curious question, since it is proposed to distort the official name, why only one part of it? Why Dynamo Kiev not Dinamo Kiev? If people decide to invent things, lets go full monty, big deal, who cares about the official names? --Hillock6522:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It is ultimately subjective and open to error, but even the most cursory search of reliable sources will highlight that most, near all, use the Dynamo Kiev form. Well, to be honest, the wikipedia guidelines have to an extent ignored official names for common English usage. I believe this is to avoid situations where the official name is not ditinguishable in English. Please calm down, i have already said that we should just close this and move onto building up the article. This seems to have been lost amongst endless move debates. Woodym55522:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - the state of naming conventions in European football has not changed dramatically in the past month. Either way I think the article should remain here. ugen6403:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Strong oppose: Right to write from Ukrainian - Kyiv.--StS 06:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
I have to remind all of you that, the result could not be no consensus again. The result of the votes could affected the policy of English Wikipedia, regardless of WP:ENGLISH, Wikipedia's naming conventions, or something like that. I don't care which is the most suitable policy. But yup, check that, Kiev is the English name and Kyiv is not. The result of Munich case is no move. So could we reconsider the vote again? RaymondGiggs16:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Why? Of course it could be no consensus again. That's what it's looking like to me, with a leaning to oppose if anything. I'm sorry that doens't satisfy you, but that's the way it is. - fchd16:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not the problem about consensus. Although someone don't mind anything. But the vote could be leading into double standard if we do not confirm the naming policy. Double standard, doesn't matter but, make sure all contributors know which situation should be. If we don't do that, the contributors could do anything without sense. RaymondGiggs16:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It is done on a case-by-case basis and it is not really a vote either. Kiev is a special case in that Kyiv is becoming increasingly widely used. Does it actually make that much difference, does it help to build an encyclopedia? See WP:IAR. I think we just need to accept this name, move on and try to improve the article. Woodym55516:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW Raymond Kyiv is an English name as well. Its newer to reflect the Ukrainian pronounciation and increasingly used by officialdome. Cheers Eduvalko17:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, how often will these name change requests be happening? The previous one was in September this year. Should we expect another one or maybe two before the end of the year? --Hillock6519:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed - I made the same point up above. If this one closes, as seems likely as either oppose or no consensus, I wouldn't be surprised to see the same user nominate it again within a fortnight. - fchd18:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Move wars should stop now!
Guys, the closing admin definitely decided badly on the outcome of this discussion. The article needs to be moved back. However, moving back-and-forth by both sides of this dispute would just needlessly pollute the history and create a bad climate overall. I would like also to strongly warn against cut and paste moves in either direction as they not just pollute history but ruin it and require a lot of administrative work to get undone. Please calm down all. Now, that said, I suggest an RfC on the issue. To make this easier I strongly suggest to limit the RfC scope to this article about the organization and not widen it to include the city article in any way. The one who would try to use this dispute to affect the city article, would instantly derail the effort because when anglophones see this as a vehicle to rename the city article, the effort would be doomed. --Irpen18:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what criteria they are using. Bayern Munich as an example. The article's name is Bayern Munich but the full name is the German one. So Dynamo Kiev's full name should be FC Dynamo Kyiv. Someone still confused about it. RaymondGiggs10:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The two articles are completely independent. A decision on one does not (and should not) affect the other. - fchd13:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The team is known as FC Dynamo Kiev more commonly iin English. I think we have established that by the move. Do we really need another post-move discussion that will only get us nowhere? Reginmund15:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
What was the discussion necessary for, if its result has not been taken into account? If somebody feels himself "more equal" than others to make moves without consensus, than why do we need to create the appearance of "discussion"... Ans-mo15:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
See Red Star Belgrade again. The article's should be English, but doesn't means the full name should use English. I would rather use Dynamo Kiev for article's name, and Dynamo Kyiv for club's full name. I would not do anything with breaking the 3RR rule, but I hope you could make consensus. RaymondGiggs16:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Why do people not understand that "Kyiv" is slowly becoming the more accepted transliteration of the Ukrainian name "Київ"? Even the club's official English-language website uses "Kyiv" in all its publications. The CIA's World Factbook page on the Ukraine ([24]) uses "Kyiv" and Manchester United's official website refers to the club as "Dynamo Kyiv" and the city as "Kyiv" ([25][26]). Anyone that still refers to either the club or the city as "Kiev" is stuck in the past, tbh. - PeeJay18:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I think PeeJay makes an important argument here. A good reason why more hits come up for "Dynamo Kiev" than "Dynamo Kyiv" is because a. website editors stick to old traditional names that they've seen prior to the 90s b. more Russian speakers than Ukrainian speakers who will avoid the use of Ukrainian at all costs c. website editors and newswriters are usually horrible at figuring out what name is official/what isn't especially if they're not from the native land. So just because some American bum from ABCNews decides to use Dynamo Kiev as the official name because he doesn't know better (individuals who read Reuters reports on Ukrainian soccer will CONSTANTLY notice stupidity like "Dynamo Kiev lost to Manchester United with a score of 2:4. The Russian side failed to..blah blah).
Lastly, I'd like to point out that making a decision on the number of Google Hits on the subject matter is completely stupid. In fact, "Dinamo Kiev" -wikipedia" gives you more hits than either "Dynamo Kiev" or "Dynamo Kyiv"... --Palffy19:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
A narrow comment. I think the argument like PeeJay is making is extremely unhelpful as he invokes again his opinion of what the city name should be in Wikipedia. Unlike the club name, the city name is a huge issue and no way the change of the city name can be reasonably accomplished now as English usage does not support it. The usage of the club name is a whole different story and should be treated narrowly. I warned many times that if we start making an argument of the city name within the much narrower issue of the club name, we would be shooting ourselves in the foot. We should emphasize that the club and organization names like Kyivstar, Kyiv Post and football club are names in their own right and should not be a part of the years-long debate about the name of the city. --Irpen19:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I perhaps shouldn't have introduced the debate about the naming of the city itself. However, it does demonstrate that the linguistic climate is changing with regard to Ukrainian names. The transliteration "Kiev" is based on the Russian name for the city, and is as antiquated as the Soviet Union itself. As I said, if you use "Kiev" instead of "Kyiv", you are either stuck in the past or you don't know any better. By proliferating the usage of "Kyiv", we can reduce the number of people who don't know any better so that those who are stuck in the past and still choose to use "Kiev" are finally in the minority. - PeeJay20:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
PJ, I don't know how can I possibly ask more nicely and clearly. As you say, you "shouldn't have introduced the debate about the naming of the city itself" and here we come to a full stop. Please no further arguments about the city, Russian, Soviet and antiquated unless you want to derail the club's name being returned to were it should be. We only discuss the names of the organizations here, not the name of the city. OK? --Irpen21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand what Irpen is saying now..this isn't about the name of the city itself, its about the FC Dynamo Kyiv organization, which officially calls itself, in addition to approval by UEFA and other credible sources, as "FC Dynamo Kyiv" and nothing else.. This article should really be reverted, I'm not sure what the admin was thinking here.. --Palffy22:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The admin clearly goofed but he has done it in good faith. The closing admin is not bound by the pure vote numbers and is free to assign higher weight to the meaningful arguments and disregard the meaningless ones, thus having a discretion. Of course, admin's own views get into play when deciding which argument is indeed more meaningful than the other. This is a lesser evil than going by numbers thus opening any move survey to rigging by socks.
As to what can be done here, it may be one of several things. Launching a new rename request would be the first option. Appealing the admin decision at the administrator's board is the second option. Writing up an RfC is the third option. However, whatever is done, when (and if) the global Kyivizers attempt to use this debate as a vehicle for the city article renaming or to put forward their arguments about Russian, Soviet, Ukrainian, etc., that is the moment the uninvolved users see this related in any way to the city name article, the chances of the success would immediately get slim. We have a pretty good shot to make a case for the organization name. We have no case for the city article. --Irpen22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I was only made aware of this discussion when I noticed the move, otherwise I would have voted "strongly against" the move. I fail to see why anyone should be telling a club (or any other business/organisation) how to call itself. This club calls itself "FC Dynamo Kyiv", which is plain and clear from the English section of its web site: [27]. A baffling move by the admins. Dkua23:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Would an official letter/email from Dynamo Kyiv stating how they would like to be called be a resolution to this dispute (assume they're at all interested in this matter)? --Palffy01:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Officialy the club is called FC Dynamo Kyiv. Wikipedia is not about giving the most common information it is about giving corect information. Neither the club itself or main football body in Europe recognise Dynamo Kiev as an official name. Both use Dynamo Kyiv. Their official websites use Kyiv. So what is the problem? Manchester United is probably more known as ManU but nobody is chanching it to that. Let's be mature and stick to correct information please. --MaksKhomenko08:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
File:F7e132855a4c70268535b7478d14f75a.jpgI would like to ask you to have a look at the following image this is a picture of a Highway M05Kyiv - Odesa, it was constructed by Ukrautodor. Government owned company, controlled by ministry of transport. It clearly shows spelling Kyiv, which is the correct translation from Ukrainian to English. I hope this is a reliable evidence to those who believe Kyiv is not a term used in English. --MaksKhomenko17:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, I believe the motorway image has nothing to do with the football club. It would be great for talk:Kiev/naming, but not here. The whole crucial difference here is that Dynamo Kyiv is an organization, and only they have a right to say what they prefer to be called. Bogdan05:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The admin who moved the article
The admin above who moved the article without a clear consensus also moved Myanmar to "Burma" about a month ago and there was no consensus on that vote either (see the Myanmar talk page). Also I requested a move back shortly after Myanmer was unfairly moved, but the poll was locked immediately. However on this article we had a vote in favor of keeping FC Dynamo Kyiv and then less than a month later we had another poll (which favored keeping the article the status quo) despite the precedent on the Myanmar article to NOT hold a second poll shortly afterwards. Is there any way we can stop these admins who are abusing their powers? --Tocino19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Evidently some English contributors are concerned that "Kyiv" will force its way into the English language through the use of "FC Dynamo Kyiv". This smacks of ignorance. English is no more endangered by a club called "FC Dynamo Kyiv" than it is by IFK Göteborg from Gothenburg, Club Brugge K.V. from Bruges, Sevilla FC from Seville, Torino F.C. from Turin, A.S. Roma from Rome, or by La Liga, Serie A or Copa Libertadores for that matter. Moreover this smacks of racism, as these sort of objections seem to only apply to Eastern European countries. This also goes against basic economic and social norms. There are few things more important to any organisation than a brand. It is hard to imagine anyone objecting against say the name of Kwik Fit on the grounds that is it spelled incorrectly. The club has established the brand "FC Dynamo Kyiv" because it believes it is important for its image and for building relations with its fan, and that should clearly be respected. Dkua02:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Dkua, I think you are very right on this. I made the same point about the brand on Talk:FC Arsenal Kyiv. The owners invest money into their business and a huge part of it is their brand name, image and the associations that go with it. Interestingly and relevantly to the topic, Manchester United played Dynamo Kyiv today, and in the U.S. the game was shown on ESPN, a huge sports network. Being aware of this debate around the naming, I was curious to see what name would be used on TV. It was FC Dynamo Kyiv.--Riurik(discuss)03:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm here, should anyone want to lynch me.
Now, look people: I don't have any vested interest or particular opinion on the issue of naming of sport club articles, except that we should have a) stability and b) a standard; actully, that two in reverse order, since a standard should ultimately result in stability. Yes, we might as well adopt a go-as-you-please stance, that would result in numerous edit/move wars. And that is decidedly undesirable.
The two standards currently in effect are "use English", and WP:NC#Sports teams. I'm not a native English speaker, and I argued at more than one occasion that WP:UE is often overused and abused. However, I fail to see how they're not applicable to clubs like FC Red Star Belgrade, which is the name used by the club itself, universally used across the English world, yet was moved against consensus a month ago.
There are indeed open issues; for example, why is the club's prefix not always "FC", but sometimes "FK", "AC"...
Yes, I see there exists a vocal support for the idea "the club articles should be at official titles"; I'm fine with that: but please do argue it WT:NC rather than on every single article. Special prize goes to the one who finds e.g. Basketball Club Barcelona in one move.
So, in sum, please do set up a centralized discussion on the issue; should the result be rejection of the said policies and guidelines, I'll be fine with that, and will close every future RM by votecounting, and the more numerous crowd shall win. But I really don't feel rouge enough to fight the crowds on an incredibly lame issue. Duja►09:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Good thoughts Duja. In the meanwhile can we go back to the article name ( as per the support of most of the editors)before it was arbitrarily made? regards Eduvalko14:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Reginmund, why do you insist that "FC Dynamo Kiev" be included in the {{{fullname}}} field within the infobox? As I clearly stated in my edit summary, the football club infobox template states that: the {{{clubname}}} field should include "the commonly-used name of the club" (FC Dynamo Kiev... which, I thought was so-called "established" by the community's consensus..) The field {{{fullname}}} shall include "the club's complete name" (FC Dynamo Kyiv, you cannont deny that.. it is the official full name). —dima/talk/03:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Why do I have a hunch that the title is not "full" hence it cannot be a shortening because it is no shorter? Somehow, it is an argument is not helping and neither are you Mistress Maksdo. Reginmund02:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the opinion of one editor should trump that of a better argument. The full name is available on the team's official website in English. It reads: FC Dynamo Kyiv. Nothing more, nothing less.--Riurik(discuss)04:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me explain. In Reginmund's mind fullname cannot be different from what the article name [currently] is (FC Dynamo Kiev). That's his credo, that's his thing. Also, in the fullname, Kiev has to be spelled identically to the [current] clubname. I know, I know, it doesn't make sense, but... Reginmund is the one who has a basic understanding of the Cyrillic alphabet, not you, Riurik, and not you, Bogdan. Welcome to a teen wiki! On the serious note, I have no idea what this guy is saying: "the title is not "full" hence it cannot be a shortening because it is no shorter." Say, wha-a-at? Maksdo05:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
MaksKhomenko: Wouldn't "Dynamo Kyiv" be a clubname, most commonly used, i.e. in conversations. I doubt "FC" would be repeated in the course of a conversation. Maksdo13:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The {{{fullname}}} parameter in {{Infobox football club}} is the official full name of the club, in this case that is undisputably "FC Dynamo Kyiv". By contrast, "FC Dynamo Kiev" is an invention of people who think Kyiv should be translated to Kiev. Can you not see that they are different? - MTC17:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I speak for myself and several other editors when I say that I am still puzzled by this statement, "the title is not "full" hence it cannot be a shortening because it is no shorter". Please explain your comment to me Reginmund, and we might just bring this discussion to a close. Just one correction MTC, Dynamo Kiev is not an invention, but the official name of the team in Soviet times. From which comes the argument "It is more widely used". Regards, Bogdanщо?21:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, during Soviet times the name of the club was Dinamo Kiev, not Dynamo Kiev. - MTC21:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, they would have made the wrong decision no matter which one of your suggestions they chose. "FC Dinamo Kiev" is actually worse than "FC Dynamo Kiev", as it is in Russian. At least "FC Dynamo Kyiv" is in English! - PeeJay11:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
announcement of centralized discussion on Naming convention for sports teams
Errr - the agreement was between three Ukrainian editors plus yourself. I think we should actually wait for some wider input first. пﮟოьεԻ5708:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no problems waiting. I was under the impression that these types of discussion are usually roughly a week in length, and sometimes even shorter. The more input, the better.
It just seems that every time the name Kyiv comes up, there is lots of opposition and dragging out, even there was a clear vote here to keep the name at "Dynamo Kyiv". Thanks, Horlo (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Horlo, keep in mind that this is not about the "votes", rather it is about the stronger argument, although in my opinion votes are reflective of some of consensus.--Riurik(discuss)22:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Num. 57 (I just realized that I kept referring to you as #58, apologies), How can you say that the consensus was between three Ukrainian editors. That is such a lie. Horlo, only joined later, and those who participated most actively were definitely not from Ukraine/Ukrainian, and how would you know if they were Ukrainian? When I asked for final objections (after Angelo replied to your UEFA/FIFA objection), you did not voice yours. Now you changed your mind?--Riurik(discuss)22:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Propose to bring the name of the article in line with WP naming conventions
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Uniform question
The article states that a blue sash had been added to the Dynamo Kyiv uniforms in 1975. however, anyone in possession of any pictures from 1961 championship would see blue sashes on them. Check out the famous Lobanovsky serving a corner kick picture - blue sash!!!! Goliath74 (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the updated Sports teams section of Wikipedia naming conventions, I see that the current location of this article, FC Dynamo Kyiv, does not meet all the requirements for "no ambiguity". Google hits:
Although "dynamo kyiv" is not yet as common as "dynamo kiev" (by a ratio of 6:1), it is used by websites such as Goal.com and ManUtd.com, and magazines such as World Soccer, which I believe is a significant proportion of the media.
it is recognizable Y
"Dynamo Kyiv" is not too dissimilar to "Dynamo Kiev".
it is not easily confused with other clubs' names Y
There's only one club from Kiev with the name Dynamo.
Haven't we been through this enough already? It looks like Dynamo Kyiv does meet the requirements. Please tell me there isn't going to be another move request. Can't everyone wait at least two days? Ostap (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
A general Google search has to be on the string exclude Wikipedia and be restricted to English pages:
about 109,000 English pages for "Dynamo Kyiv" -wikipedia.
about 200,000 English pages for "Dynamo Kiev" -wikipedia.
The trouble with a general Google search is that it also brings in lots of pages by people who's first language is not English. In this case if one restricts the search to the only English speaking country with teams that are likely to compete with Dynamo one gets a very different picture:
about 2,650 English pages for "Dynamo Kyiv" site:uk.
about 35,400 English pages for "Dynamo Kiev" -wikipedia site:uk.
That puts the ratio of all Google pages at about 64% in favour of "Dynamo Kiev" and for British pages at about 93% for "Dynamo Kiev". As the majority of English speakers who are likely to be interested in this page are British I suggest it is moved to the name that is overwhelmingly used in the UK on the justification UK media are reliable English sources, and most web pages are not. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I disagree with the claim that the majority of English speakers are likely to be British. It is not supported and ignores the numerous other fans of the club. Second, the general pages are not used precisely for the reasons noted - they are often unreliable because google includes pages that make no logical sense. Therefore, the determination of the club name is made according to the following policy: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Sports_teams.--Riurik(discuss)18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't treat the majority of the British media as Reliable, even for telling me what the current date is. If I recall the last rename debate, the club's website uses "Dynamo Kyiv", as does the likes of UEFA, and statistical reference sites such as rsssf.com, which is 100 times as reliable as most British media. - fchd (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
