Talk:Kievnauchfilm

Requested move 21 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:  Done - despite Roman Spinner's compelling essay, the size of the support based on the linguistic versions used in sources tips consensus towards moving. DrStrauss talk 18:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Kyivnaukfilm → Kievnauchfilm – The company itself used the Russian spelling of its name during its existence (see link). It was also the title of the article until it was moved unilaterally in 2015. eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: Announcement of this discussion appears at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. While the on-screen Russian-language logo, which uses the Russian form "Kiev" in "Kievnaukfilm", may be used to argue that this was simply a Russian film unit based in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv (the file comes from Russian Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia's file collection, not Wikimedia Commons), Ukrainian Wikipedia's article on the subject, Національна кінематека України (National Cinematheque of Ukraine) refers, within the Cinemateque article, to the unit by its Ukrainian name, Kyivnaukfilm.

It should be noted, by way of an explanation, that Ukrainian Wikipedia does not have a separate article on Kyivnaukfilm, with Київнаукфільм {Kyivnaukfilm} redirecting to Національна кінематека України {National Cinematheque of Ukraine} and English Wikipedia's Ukrainian interwiki links for both Kyivnaukfilm and National Cinematheque of Ukraine flow to Ukrainian Wikipedia's article for Національна кінематека України {National Cinematheque of Ukraine} which combines both subjects.

Although it has been traditional over the past decades and centuries, of Ukraine's domination by Russia, for Western media to use transliterations of Russian forms for Ukrainian names, cities, institutions, etc (see discussions regarding this subject at such venues as Talk:Oleg Sentsov#Requested move 21 October 2016, Talk:Valeriya Gontaryeva#Requested move 18 April 2017 or Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 55#Article names in other Wikipedias), now that Ukraine has been an independent country since 1991, such transliterations should no longer be the case and, taking into account that there are articles for numerous genuine Russian film units, this film unit, based in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv (known in the English-speaking world by its Russian form, Kiev), should not be forced to bear, in English transliteration, a Russian name. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The article was stable at Kievnauchfilm for years before a unilateral undiscussed move. User:Roman Spinner's impassioned essay notwithstanding, the proposed title is more common in English print sources (see also here). The current title is an anachronism as the studio largely ceased to exist under that name after Ukraine's independence. —  AjaxSmack  02:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. A number of additional points need to be made regarding this matter:

1) Russian Wikipedia's entry for Kyivnaukfilm does not describe it as a Russian film studio, but one located on the territory of Ukrainian SSR, in the Ukrainian capital, and gives the studio's Ukrainian name "Kyivnaukfilm" (in Ukrainian characters) as the second word in the lead sentence, immediately following the studio's Russian name "Kievnauchfilm" (in Russian characters).

2) The "unilateral undiscussed move" occurred not a week ago, or a month ago or even a year ago, but almost two years ago and no one raised any objections. After over one year and eleven months, the Ukrainian name, Kyivnaukfilm, may now be considered the stable title.

3) The contention that the current title is an anachronism, because Kyivnaukfilm is no longer the studio's name, is negated by the fact that English Wikipedia already has a separate article about the studio's successor, National Cinematheque of Ukraine, thus specifying that this article is deliberately focused upon the era when the studio's name was Kyivnaukfilm.

4) The key point, however, is a historical one which continues to this day despite a quarter century of Ukrainian independence. All Ukrainian topics have been traditionally transliterated into Western European (and all other) languages using Russian orthography, thus distorting and Russifying Ukrainian linguistic styles and formulations (among various differences, Russian language has no H/h sound and Ukrainian language has no G/g sound). Thus, despite the existence of English Wikipedia's guideline for WP:UKRAINIANNAMES, discussions, such as the above-mentioned Oleh Sentsov / Oleg Sentsov at Talk:Oleg Sentsov, continue to insist that the Russian transliteration of Ukrainian people, places and things is the WP:COMMONNAME and point to such examples as the British Film Institute's use of the Russian "Kievnauchfilm", rather than the Ukrainian "Kyivnaukfilm".

5) The nominator of this RM has posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine indicating that the Ukrainian names, which have been created as Russian names and moved to Ukrainian names, should be returned to their Russian forms since the Russian forms are purportedly the "common names". Despite the fact that the US State Department has taken care to use Ukrainian transliterations of Ukrainian names in its releases, most Western media continue to use Russian transliterations for Ukrainian topics.

6) Despite all the grandfathered uses of Russian transliteration in historical sources, Wikipedia is not obligated to follow outdated transliteration forms for Ukrainian topics and would be on the correct side of history by using Ukrainian transliteration. There are already hundreds of properly transliterated Ukrainian names in Wikipedia, but most of those are of individuals with a low profile on the international stage, such as Ukrainian footballers or those with a high political profile, such as national leaders. Ukrainian entertainers, however, especially those popular in Russia, are almost always transliterated into English on Wikipedia via their Russian name forms.

7) Since in the case at hand, all sources, including Russian ones, agree that this was a Ukrainian studio, it should be given its true and proper place in history by having the transliterated Ukrainian form remain as this article's main title header. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support Appears to be the most appropriate title based on WP:COMMONNAME in RS English language sources. The arguments for and against need to be based on that. This reminds me too much of Iznik Pottery. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. Yet further details are necessary to place this topic in its proper perspective:

1) There are a number of reasons why the comparison to Talk:Iznik pottery#Requested move 21 February 2017 is inapplicable, chief among them is that unlike Russian and Ukrainian, Turkish uses the Latin alphabet, thus eliminating the need for transliteration. More importantly, the entire discussion was about a diacritical mark (dotted capital İ), which is not used in English. The name of the Turkish place, itself, whether İznik or Iznik, would still remain the same.

2) The claim in this nomination, however, is totally different — it is claimed that for a Ukrainian film studio, the WP:COMMONNAME in RS English language sources is the transliteration of its Russian name, Kievnauchfilm, rather than its Ukrainian name, Kyivnaukfilm.

3) No one wishes to deny Russia its great cultural heritage of Pushkin, Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky, etc and there are plenty of undisputed Russian film studios, thus obviating the need for laying claim to Ukrainian cultural past by naming Ukrainian institutions with transliterated Russian names, rather than Ukrainian ones, as has been the case over the past decades and even centuries and has continued since Ukrainian independence.

4) These grandfathered forms which deny the existence of Ukrainian language and transliterate Ukrainian into Russian despite the wide differences between the two languages (e.g. Russian has no "H" and Ukrainian has no "G", as pointed out in the lengthy discussion on this related topic at Talk:Oleg Sentsov#Requested move 21 October 2016) have been so deeply ingrained in Western culture that the outdated sources from the past serve as guidelines for modern-day transliteration, thus perpetuating the same vicious cycle.

5) Wikipedia, however, is under no obligation to rely on outdated Western sources and should instead follow the guidance of the US State Department, which has now been using Ukrainian transliteration and English-language Ukrainian sources, such as the newspaper Kyiv Post, which also has a Wikipedia entry. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The studio's notability comes from its existence under the Russian name during the Soviet era, and sources reflect this. The undiscussed move should be (belatedly) reversed. There are several categories to be renamed also. Andrewa (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.