Talk:List of former national capitals

old

Turku was the capital of Finland during the early part of its autonomy. After the mandatory Great Fire, Helsinki gained the status. Finland was not fully independent at the time, so would that count? - Kizor, 27.12.2003

I had thought about adding it and didn't. As the "country, empire" definition of this table is a bit more flexible than the one of List of national capitals, I suppose you could include it, but should probably avoid to list just "Finland" as entity. Hopefully our history specialists will correct us, in case we get (or already did get) carried away. -- User:Docu

---

I went to add the movement of the capital of Thailand from Ayutthaya to Bangkok to this list but noticed it is already there, commented out. Can anyone allude me to why? -- OwlofDoom 17:36, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't quite sure if or how (Thailand, Siam or Ayutthaya kingdom) to add it, but this shouldn't prevent you from adding it. -- User:Docu

Sorry, I meant it has already been added, but there are comment markers around it to stop it appearing. I was guessing someone intentionally removed it for some reason. I would prefer to know this reason before adding it back in. -- OwlofDoom 07:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Some corner cases: Zanzibar was independent for a brief time in 1963 before becoming part of Tanzania. Also Tanzania has partially moved their capital from Dar es Salaam to Dodoma, so maybe Dar es Salaam should be on the list? - Zdv 09:12, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Also, Richmond and Montgomery of the Confederate States of America could be included, but you could also argue they did not win their war for independence and were never a recognized nation Zdv 02:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

UK

1. Hmm... UK 1940-1990 Government in Exile? Is there some sensible point behind this, some strange legality, or it just silliness?

2. Would England's various capitals (Winchester, York, etc.) and the capitals of the former kingdoms (Repton the capital of Mercia, Colchester the capital of the Iceni) qualify? 195.137.95.70

Ah. I see. These are capitals of Poland, not the United Kingdom and France. I will edit this to reflect the change 195.137.95.70 1519GMT 28i05. I think I should go and get an account now.

That thing about Poland is so odd! I solved the problem on Portugal issued in Portugal article. -Pedro 12:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know how to change but, for England, shouldn't we include Kingston-Upon-Thames (capital in the 900s) and Oxford (capital during the Civil War). Also, Finland's former capital was Turku and Wales' former capital was St Davids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.212.134 (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Format Change

Would everybody be interested in changing this page's format to that of List of current and former capital cities within the United States'? In my opinion, that format is much better than the one we currently have up. -- User:Amerika

I would like the country being listed in the first column (like the US list) since that would be easier to scan and find what you are looking for, but I also like the dates being in two columns, like in this article. NoSeptember 23:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to switch the two columns. Besides, the format is quite thorough, it answers:

1. Which was the capital?
2. Whose capital was it?
3. When and why did it change?

The other list primarly lists where and when. As it mostly about former state capitals, it gets away with that (it answers the other question too BTW). It might need a separate table to make it easier to find the capitals of the Confederate states. You might have a particularly point in mind which part of this table needs improvement. -- User:Docu

Vienna

What does it mean when it says in the last column that Vienna "became in" the Austro-Hungarian empire or elsewhere - does that mean it "became the capital in"? Right now it doesn't make any sense. - DavidWBrooks 13:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

It still doesn't make any sense, six months later. I'm going to change it to ENglish. - DavidWBrooks 11:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

---

What about the Crown of Aragon??

National capitals?

It seems to me that this list will be more useful if it is moved to List of historical capital cities, or some such. That way there's less need to worry about the dependent territory issue. john k 21:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Armenia was the country of wandering capitals.It has had almost 12 capitals. If you go and name all the countries with their capitals and their province capitals under different dynasties I am afraid you will need years to complete the list. So far, this list is not scientific and trustworthy.

Former capitals of Russia

Explain to me why Persepolis of Achaemenid Empire can be listed as first capital of Iran or Anyang of Shang state as first capital of China and why then Kiev of Kievan Rus can not be listed as a first capital of Russia ? Fisenko 22:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Because Kiev is not an intrinsic part of modern day Russia in contrast to Persepolis being within modern day Iran. It is a very contoversial definition simply because it is incorrect to link one state to the capital of another state.

There was no Russia when Kiev was a capital of "Kievan Rus". It is wrong to list Kiev as "the first capital of Russia" simply because the name "Russia" was introduced by Peter The Great (Feofan Prokopovich, to be correct) to distinguish a novel quality of Peter's state - a new empire. Kiev never was a capital of this one. —dima/s-ko/ 18:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Pressburg (Bratislava) in modern Slovakia is listed as a capital of Hungary between 1536 and 1784. That's just one example of a former national capital outside of modern sate borders.Kievan Rus, Muscovite Russia and Russian Empire shared much more in common than Achaemenid Empire and modern Iran for example. They all were main Eastern Slavic states united by Orthodox Christian identity, roughly in the same geographical area and in case of Kievan Rus and Muscovite Tsardom they even had the same ruling Rurikid dynasty at the top. Russia is just latinized form of the name Rus adopted by Peter the Great, and of course there is a no argument here that Muscovy was the direct predecessor of the Russian Empire. The case for the Russia Empire's and Muscovy origin to be traced to Kievan Rus is also much stronger than that between Achaemenid Empire and for example Pahlavi's Iran who only shared geographic location and related languages but had different cultures, religions, used different alphabets, were ruled by different dynasties etc. Fisenko 19:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I agree inculding Kiev as a historical capital, ONLY if we add Kiev | Ukraine (Kievan Rus') and the following dates and figures to the section on Ukraine AND add a section on Belarus, inculding Kiev, and their historical capitals... —dima/s-ko/ 04:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Iranian/Persian capitals

It appears that a couple cells are missing, needing either names and/or dates. Paploo 18:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Roskilde in Denmark

The dates which indicates the period, in which Roskilde was the capital of Denmark, are hardly correct. It's a fact, that Copenhagen replaced Roskilde, and become the capital of Denmark, shortly after the reformation in 1536. Furthermore, Roskilde was the capital of Denmark since the twelfth century, contemporary with the Danish archbishop Absalon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.91.175.157 (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Kingdom of Jerusalem

Is it not vastly inaccurate to have the flag of Israel situated with the kingdom of Jerusalem?85.220.81.78 23:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The flags seem to be based on the current country the cities are in, rather than the one they were in at the t ime. Still lame, though. john k 01:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Especially as the city of Jerusalem that existed from 1099-1187 was the Old City, which most of the world considers to be part of Palestine. john k 01:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Anachronistic Flags

Can we have a consensus on whether to use the historic flags (sometimes unavailable, in which case use a blank), or to use the flag of the country that the city currently resides in (highly anachronistic)? Personally, I favour using historical flags or blanks, but I really don't want to get into a revert war. Rhialto 03:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the concern. Especially in the case of China, where the People's Republic of China flag is currently being displayed next to time periods during which the Republic of China had control. The ROC is still a surviving entity (currently in Taiwan) and some would consider it POV to display the PRC flag for the time periods when the ROC was in power, especially since the PRC wasn't even established until 1949.

There is also the issue that capital durations do not necessarily correspond to the time periods when particular regimes were in power. For instance, the ROC had control of mainland China from 1912-1949, but one of the entries lists Beijing as the capital from 1421-1928. In that case, do we use the ROC flag or the Qing Dynasty flag, since the Qing were in power from 1644-1912? Or do we go further back since the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) were in power when the capital was first moved to Beijing (despite the fact that we don't know what the Ming flag was)?

All these issues leads me to conclude that we shouldn't be including flags in the first place. They seem irrelevant in this article. What are people's thoughts on this matter? —Umofomia 11:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think removing the flags entirely is a good approach. Quite apart from teh issue of which flag to use for countrie sthat changed the flag (and more controversial issues), the shear number of special {{}} tags mkes for an incredibly slow loading experience. On the (admittedly old) machine I used at work, that page has even crashed the machine with the amount of processing going on in the background because of those flag includes. The controversy surrounding the flags, the lack of a complete flag database, and the extra bandwidth all make me think removing flags is best. Rhialto 11:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

rfc on flags issue

I've opened up a formal rfc [here]. For the benefit of new visitors, the summary is:

• No flags - reduced information content, but faster loading. The page with flags has been known to crash browsers running on older machines.
• current flags - flag images are easily available, but will produce anachronistic/misleading information, and in some cases (China/Taiwan) POV issues will arise.
• historical flags - images generally not available. In some cases, the flag changed during the city's tenure as cpital, creating more issues.

So far, both people with an opinion seem to be in favour of removing flags entirely, but I thought it best to open this up to a wider audience first. Rhialto 04:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless I get feedback to the countrary, I can only assume that no one who has added flags can see sufficient justification to keep them. I have already added this page to the rfd sections in the wiki. Starting in about 2 weeks or so, I will begin removing the flags unless someone has a coherent objection. Rhialto 21:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have only recently added a flag (Byzantine Empire) but I am, frankly, ambivalent about it. I like the flags, but the concerns (e.g., using the Iranian flag for the Medes)are viable and I can't argue with the removal of the flags. Argos'Dad 04:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

List of historical national capitals → List of former national capitals — At the moment, I am performing a clean-up of categories that use the term "historic", which is how I found this article. The term in general is used in a variety of ways on Wikipedia. For capitals, the term could be used to indicate that the location is old, that the location has received a government designation for preservation or restoration, that the location no longer exists, or that the location was once a capital but is no longer used as one. Using the term "former" is less ambiguous, as it clearly indicates that the locations are no longer the national capitals of any countries. I hope other people here find my proposal acceptable. —Dr. Submillimeter 13:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

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 Move performed. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

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.

• Support - See my reasoning above. Dr. Submillimeter 13:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support - clearer purpose for the article. Many current national capitals are historic in other respects. Warofdreams talk 13:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The existing title, while probably quite clear to native English speakers, is inaccurate in several subtle ways that may be confusing to others. Many existing capitals (perhaps all of them!) are historic, and it would be logically possible for a former capital to have no historical significance, if for example it was technically the capital for only a few minutes (I know of no actual example of this). The proposed rename addresses both these issues, with no obvious downside. Andrewa 23:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I can't see any reason not to. Rhialto 07:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support — seems like a clearer title. Russ (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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.

Renamings?

Why are city renamings included in this list? A city that has had its name changed is not a former capital; the capital was in the same place both before and after. This leads to such absurdities as listing Oslo as a "former capital" of Norway when, in fact, Oslo has been the capital throughout the country's recorded history; it just had its name changed to Christiana and then back to Oslo at various times. Is there support for removing entries that solely reflect name changes? --Russ (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced... the introduction explicitly states that the list does include renamings. And it's good to have these listed somewhere. Splitting the list into two, one for mere renamings and the other for moves of the capital, disolutions and merges of states, and the like, doesn't appeal to me at all.

Is there another change that would avoid these absurdities but allow us to keep the inclusive list as is? Perhaps a clearer introduction? Or is there another, better name for the list (just as we've decided on one name change)? Andrewa 14:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Rio is in South America

And yes, I know the official main component was still in Europe. But the list is sorted by city location, not by country. Rhialto 06:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Melbourne, Australia

Melbourne was never the formal capital of Australia, not even a "temporary capital". It was never so described in any contemporaneous documents I've ever seen, and we don't describe it as the "former capital" in its own page (well, sometimes editors say this but they get quickly reverted). The situation was that the 6 British colonies decided to federate and form the Commonwealth of Australia, from 1 January 1901. The former colonies became the 6 states of Australia. The Constitution of Australia set out some rules about the "seat of government" - including being within New South Wales and not less than 100 miles from Sydney. (Melbourne is not in NSW, but Victoria.) It also said "The Parliament shall meet in Melbourne until it meet at the seat of Government" (s. 125). So, while Melbourne became the meeting place of the Parliament of Australia and the focal point of the Government of Australia until 1927, Australia did not have an official capital until then. Both Sydney and Melbourne could lay claim to being the economic/cultural capital from 1901-1927, but they could also both claim that to this day - and both do, vociferously, in a perpetual rivalry - because Canberra has only ever been the official capital, not the economic/cultural capital. I don't know if this is a unique case, but baldly saying Melbourne preceded Canberra as the capital of Australia is misleading. Any comments before I do some work on it? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've moved it to a footnote, because many people have this misapprehension. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In common speech, isn't a capital, er where the parliament and government is located. Maybe Melbourne wasn't The Capital of Australia, but it was certainly the capital of Australia. Certainly the issue is complicated - the Hague is the de facto capital of the Netherlands, for instance, even though Amsterdam is the official capital, but I think it's a fair question to ask whether a capital is something which is defined by function, or whether it is defined by prescriptive direction of the state in question. john k (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed a fair question. Even Canberra has never, to my knowledge, been formally declared to be "the capital", merely "the seat of government". But there's abundant evidence that it has universally been considered to be the capital since 9 May 1927. Apart from the Parliament, there's a host of other national institutions, foreign embassies etc based there, and it was purpose-built as the capital. The Constitution was quite clear in relation to Melbourne. It described the then unnamed Canberra as "the seat of government", and said that the Parliament would meet in Melbourne until such time as the then unnamed Canberra was built. It did not say that Melbourne would be "the seat of government" or "the temporary seat of government", much less "the capital" or "the temporary capital". I would be prepared to acknowledge that Melbourne, between 1901 and 1927, was the de facto but not de jure seat of government, or even the temporary seat of government. But I would not be prepared to say it was any kind of capital, because, apart from the parliament, there was nothing about Melbourne that made it capital-like, other than being capital of Victoria. The parliament did not even have its own building; it borrowed the Victorian State Parliament's home for 27 years. Melbourne was not regarded or described as the capital at the time, and it should not be so described now, retrospectively. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Melbourne's status seems rather similar to the status of New York and Philadelphia before the institution of Washington as capital in 2000. Those cities are, however, described as capitals. Melbourne was the de facto capital in that the government was located there for more than a quarter century. But this is basically an argument about semantics, so I won't take it much further. Of much greater concern is that this article is, for the most part, utterly abominable. john k (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Melbourne was the seat of government from 1901 until 1927; thus making it the capital city. True, it was never officially referred to as such, but neither has the present day capital Canberra. As for the construction of a new parliament house lending legitimacy to the national "capital", there is little or no merit in this as it is irrelevant what building houses the parliament -the question is where it is and that was Melbourne.[[ 119.161.71.12 (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)M0F0]]

---I'm seeing blatant re-edits here without any evidence to contradict the legitimacy of a city as national capital when said city is the seat of government. The only argument is that the fact has never been explicitly mentioned; however, that is the same of the current capital so this as an argument is defunct. 119.161.71.12 (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)M0F0

Japan

The list of former Japanese capitals looks very incomplete. See Successive capitals of Japan--189.121.183.72 (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is why the section in this article only lists the most notable examples (by major historical events and/or duration), then gives a link to an article that goes into more depth. The CSA and Ancient Egypt have similar issues. Rhialto (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dar es Salaam

Should Dar es Salaam included in the list? ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 13:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

English Language

What is Đại Việt-Bắc Triều in English? No disrespect to Vietnam and its people, but this copy of wikipedia s meant to be written in English. Rhialto (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Capital of the Roman Empire

On this article, there must be something about the capital of the Roman Empire and the capital of the Western Roman Empire... Rome, Nicomedia, Constantinople, Nicaea (İznik), Ravenna, Milan, what else? Böri (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Trier and Antioch were semi-permanent imperial seats. Maybe Arles and York? john k (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Central Europe

Germany belongs to Central Europe according to the most actual classifications. Also historywise Germany was seen as Central Europae, with the exception of the ealry 90s, when some enzyclopedias (in UK and US - but for example not in Germany) did not. --> See also the Wikipedia article over Central Europe. While Bonn or Aachen may be acceptable also as part of Western Europe, "East Berlin" is defintly not. In fact in its time it was considered Eastern Europe. So Central Europe is the perfect classification for Germany. 59.63.13.6 (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think within Europe it would be sensible to group by modern-day country rather than by these arbitrary classifications. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Same capital different state

Why is Vienna included as capital of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary? By that logic the list could include London as capital of England (pre-1707), of Great Britain (prior to the union with Ireland), and possibly of the British Empire or of England and Wales. And Rome the capital of the Kingdom of Italy? Do you want people listing all the capitals of former monarchies that are now republics?

Where a state was renamed, split, or combined, but the same city remained capital of the obvious successor state, it should not be listed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Austrian Empire was 1804-1867. Austria-Hungary was 1867-1918. They were significantly different political entities. A-H was formed from a union of Austria and Hungary, in much the same manner that the UK was formed from a union of England and Scotland. Rhialto (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Kiev vs. Kyiv

I know Kiev is the conventional English spelling. However, this article is intended to track official spellings. Please respect the purpose of the article and its convention of using the contemporary name followed by the current official name. Rhialto (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't that mean we should use Roma, Wien, etc. as well?--Khajidha (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Have they made any official statements about how their city names should be written in English? The Ukraine government has done so with regard to Kyiv. To my knowledge, the Austrian government has made no such request regarding Vienna, nor the Italian government regarding Rome. Rhialto (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I would add that "Kiev (Kyiv)" follows the same convention within this article as "Bombay (Mumbai)", "Alma-Ata (Almaty)", "Rangoon (Yangon)", and several other official name changes. Part of the purpose of this article is to document such name changes. Removing references to "Kyiv" would therefore give the false impression that they had not made any official change to their name. Rhialto (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how they have any power to make a change in another language. Also, those other changes you mention have actually affected common English usage. --Khajidha (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Am I going to have to take you two to Dispute Resolution? DS (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Rhialto, the page says that it tracks when city names have changed. The name of the capital of Ukraine has not changed. It remains "Kyiv" (in Ukrainian, transliterated). That name has been and still is translated to English as "Kiev". The Ukrainian government has stated that the transliteration from Ukrainian Cyrillic to English Latin letters is "Kyiv". But there is no indication on this page that we are dealing with transliterations (much less official ones), and several indications that we are dealing with translations (the aforementioned cities and the country name Ivory Coast for example). Given this, I see no reason to use "Kyiv" on this page. --Khajidha (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

In the case of that nation in west Africa, that country's government has made it clear that their official name, even in purely English-language contexts, is Cote d'Ivoire. Thank you for bringing that item to my attention btw, it is another item that needs to be added to the list.

That's not exactly a counter-example - quite the opposite in fact. However, since you seem to want real-world examples of English-language usage of "Kyiv" (even though that is a criterion going beyond what this article uses), here are some:

• inyourpocket
• lonelyplanet
• calvertjournal "The request by the Ukrainian government for Kyiv to become the standard English spelling has been successful to an extent, with the US Board on Geographic Names approving the spelling and the White House and UK Foreign Office, among others, using it."
• chicagosistercities
• gov.uk "Summary – removal of advice and information on large religious processions in Kyiv on 27 July 2016"
• whitehouse.gov

(several others I found I chose not to list, as they were arguably written or hosted by groups with a pro-Ukrainian point of view)

I agree that currently, "Kiev" is currently by far the more common English-language name for the city. However, usage of "Kyiv" is steadily rising, and in fact the rise in usage of "Kyiv" exactly matches the rise that "Ukraine" (vs. "the Ukraine") had when that name was changed. I rather suspect that neither the US White House nor the UK Foreign Office were writing to a Ukrainian audience or translating from Ukrainian in those articles, making them prime examples to counter your claim that "Kyiv" is merely a transliteration.

Rhialto (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, English is not a regulated language. Governments have no power over it, especially not governments from countries where the native language is not even English. Yes, I want "real world" examples. "Real world" meaning sources not bound by protocol to use what Ukraine says, but that reflect the actual usage of the general English speaking population. When the news mentions this city, what form is used? --Khajidha (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, English is not regulated. There is nothing but diplomatic protocol that requires usage of those names by governments when talking to the foreign government in question. When talking to their own citizens, however, even that bit of diplomatic protocol fails to require a particular choice. In any case, you may wish to note that I did also include examples from non-governmental usage (two travel journals and one politics journal). Rhialto (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The White House source is an announcement about a diplomatic visit, thus it is covered by the protocol. The UK site shows decidedly mixed usage (roughly equal search results for each spelling). The politics journal is about diplomatic usage, not really a separate source. And the travel journals are of decidedly lesser importance compared to the usage of Kiev in the LA Times, the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, The Times (London), BBC News, etc. --Khajidha (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

How about google ngrams then? This chart shows that Kiev is currently used 9 times more than Kyiv, but also that usage of Kyiv is steadily rising, while usage of Kiev is steadily falling. In that read, a steady increase in usage of Kyiv would simply be reflecting current usage. Do bear in mind too that Kyiv decidedly is used in the wild in English language by native speakers addressing native speakers in contexts where diplomatic protocol does not require it. And that US government article (nor the Chicago one) was not addressed to Ukraine; no official acknowledgement of it was hoped for or expected from them, so diplomatic protocol would not have required it to be in their favoured spelling. Incidentally, according to this ngram, Burma is still used 2.5 times more often than Myanmar. By your logic, we should therefore never refer to Myanmar, yet we do. (Mumbai is yet another in the same boat.)

And that's quite apart from the fact that this article's intent from the start was to track official changes in place names. Given the intent of the article, calling upon popular English-language usage as the criterion, and then dismissing those sources that disagree with your point of view, is partisan behaviour. Rhialto (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

If Kiev is 9 times more common that Kyiv, I don't see why that would be a reason to change to Kyiv. And if Burma is still used more than Myanmar, then we should still use Burma. And as to your final point, the name hasn't actually changed. What the city was called the day before the Ukrainian government wrote those transliteration guidelines is the same as what it was called the day after: Київ. The question is, how does the English language handle that. --Khajidha (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

So far, I have

• Pointed out that part of the the purpose of this article is to track official name changes. And very little is more official than the city government itself changing its name.
• Pointed out that Kyiv is used by multiple governments in a context where they are talking exclusively in English to their own citizens (i.e., contexts in which diplomatic protocol does not apply).
• Pointed out that Kyiv is used by multiple journals not of Ukrainian origin, including travel guides and political journals. (As it happens, Kyiv is also used at times by the Guardian, and possibly other newspapers, although that newspaper's usage appears inconsistent, switching between the two spellings.)
• Noted that Kyiv sees significant usage as seen in google ngrams.
• Noted that wikipedia's standard is not that a majority of English-language speakers use a particular spelling, but that a particular spelling is a standard form used in the English language. Using the former standard (as you seem to desire) is an unreasonable standard, as it would in practice force either U.S. English or Indian English (depending on whether you count India as a primarily English-speaking country or not) to become the exclusive spelling, which is most certainly not wikipedia's intention.

So far, all you have noted is that Kiev is used in the majority of newspapers, and that it is the most common spelling. Wikipedia does NOT give newspapers any special position of authority in determining what spelling to use, nor does it require the most common spelling to be used (it simply requires that a standard be used). The standard for this article has been long established. If you have nothing new to add to this discussion, I would suggest we consider it a closed matter. Rhialto (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

" And very little is more official than the city government itself changing its name." But the city government HASN'T changed the name, they have stated how they would like it to be transliterated. --Khajidha (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Any one of the multiple points I raised, on its own, would be sufficient to justify using the "Kyiv" spelling. Rhialto (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

How? You claim that the form Kyiv must be used here to document the official name change, but the name hasn't changed. Therefore, it comes down to common English usage. That is still Kiev. --Khajidha (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Kyiv may not be the most common spelling, but it is undeniably a standard spelling. That is the only requirement wikipedia has for it to be used in any article. Due to this article's special focus, there is an additional reason to include it. Rhialto (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Edinburgh/Scotland

Edinburgh was the capital of the Kingdom of Scotland, a sovereign state from c. 843 to 1707, and it remains the capital of Scotland today, which is a country within the United Kingdom. But does it belong in this list? The definition in the lead is "cities that were once national capitals" and capital is defined as "the municipality enjoying primary status in a country, state, province, or other region, usually as its seat of government". Edinburgh remains the national capital of Scotland, a country within the United Kingdom, so my view is Edinburgh does not belong on this list (but it would belong on "List of former capitals of sovereign states" or "List of capitals of former sovereign states", if there were such articles). Since there has been some back and forth on this in the edit history, I thought some discussion and sources might help.

Scotland is a country which is part of the Untied Kingdom (UK). As the UK is de jure a unitary state, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, located at Westminster, London is sovereign over the entire country. However, since the late 1990s, a system of devolution has emerged in the UK, whereby Scotland, Wales and Northern Island have each been granted some measure of self government whilst remaining within the UK.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the relationship between Scotland and the current process of European integration is the description of Scotland as a region. Since Scotland is not a sovereign state, it is not a member of the EU; it is merely a region of the United Kingdom in its relation to the EU.

References

Edinburgh was removed from the list on the grounds that "Scotland is a sovereign country". Scotland has a devolved government but has not been a sovereign country since 1707, so I reverted the change. I suppose whether Edinburgh should appear depends on how you interpret "national capital" - I had assumed this would only include sovereign nations, but accept that this is debatable. Opera hat (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

When I began a major refactoring project on this page a couple of years ago, part of my intention was to restrict entries to capitals of genuinely autonomous governments (or at least, as autonomous as any country can be within the context of international diplomacy and trade agreements). This quickly fell by the wayside when it became clear that everyone wanted to include their regional capitals of interest out of a sense of cultural identity; reverting those at the time seemed an exercise in commanding the tide to turn back.

The Scottish government of 1706 was autonomous in a way that Scottish governments since then have not been autonomous. While I accept there is a clear succession of identity, it's equally clear that Scotland is not now an autonomous country. Much as it might want, it currently cannot decide its own foreign policy, among many other issues. For this reason, I would include the pre-1707 Kingdom of Scotland and its capitals as a valid entry for this page. Rhialto (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, Scotland's relationship with the UK with regard to autonomy and succession of national identity has a lot in common with Hawai'i's relationship with the USA. Both are formerly independent monarchies with a national identity that continues to the present day. Rhialto (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

France: Versailles

Versailles was the capital of France (and not Paris) between 1682 and 1789 and between 1871 and 1879.----Bancki (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)