Talk:Chernobyl

Requested move 16 March 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved at this time. Politics and war crimes aside, WP:COMMONNAME predominates. It's entirely possible that this will change in the future, perhaps even in the near future! But ... consensus is clear that the sources do not back up the assertion that it's already changed. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 21:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Chernobyl → ChornobylChornobyl – The city is commonly known as Chernobyl in English, yet this name is derived from the Russian-language name Чернобыль. According to article 3.1 of the Ukrainian Toponimic Guidelines approved by the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names, "Geographical names of the Ukrainian territory are formed and represented in writing according to the Ukrainian Spelling Rules in all spheres of their official use" (you can find the guidelines here https://unstats.un.org/unsd/ungegn/nna/toponymic/). According to the UN-approved rules of Ukrainian to English transliteration, Ukrainian name Чорнобиль is transliterated as Chornobyl (see the rules here https://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/ungegn/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP21_Roma_system_Ukraine%20_engl._.pdf). Besides, using transliterations of Ukrainian geographical names from Russian instead of Ukrainian is a relic of colonial past, not unlike using the name Bombay for the city of Mumbai in India. The usage of such names is especially offensive considering the ongoing fight for independence of Ukraine against Russia, the former colonizer, which wages the war trying to wipe the Ukrainian nation from the face of the Earth in the most brutal way. Leonidslupsky (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

— Leonidslupsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support - There are countless English language sources now using the spelling Chornobyl including Encyclopedia Britannica, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Power Technology and the National Post. JayAmber (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME based on Google Ngrams. We should not be moving article titles based on international politics. Our article naming rules are very clear that the title of an article should be the most common name used in English for a subject. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support - per Leonidslupsky and JayAmber reasoning. - DownTownRich (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - per the reasons listed by Rreagan007. This is the most common spelling of the location by English-language speakers. Chernobyl uses the spelling. News coverage of the recent takeover of the exclusion zone by Russian troops also utilize the Russian spelling. We should not alter the title of articles because of ongoing geopolitical turmoil, as it can have a chilling effect on viewership and can be confusing for the average person. JohnHawkinsBois (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Rreagan007 and JohnHawkinsBois above. The common name in English remains Chernobyl, and I suspect this move was requested for politically biased reasons. O.N.R. ^(talk) 21:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rreagan007 and others. ♦ jaguar 00:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Most people and reliably sourced media still refer their city as "Chernobyl", kinda like how Ganges still a common name against Ganga or Hanover is still common name against Hannover (double n). 180.254.171.93 (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, sympathy for the people of Ukraine notwithstanding. Unlike "Kyiv", this is not the common name in contemporary English (recent sources such as the BBC and the NYT have both "Kyiv" and "Chernobyl" on the same page). Google is a very clumsy and imperfect tool, but on Scholar, "English-language" results are:

• Chernobyl 2022, about 9210 results, page 99 has at least some hits
• Chornobyl 2022, about 590 results

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, just as I said for the earlier move request. As of now, Kyiv has definitely emerged as the more common name in English language sources over Kiev, but Chernobyl still remains far more common over Chornobyl. That may very well change, but does not appear to be the case yet. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support – There are enough official reasons for that move, including the ones already mentioned here. The "commonly recognizable name" will not change itself into correct one until we support this change, in Wikipedia as well. Flipping Switches (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  This argument explicitly contradicts to our policies and must be discarded.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The English name is Chernobyl. What the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian propaganda think about it is absolutely irrelevant in view of our policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  And, unsurprisingly, nominated by an obvious sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Not Ukrainian government and Ukrainian propaganda but name of Ukrainian city in Ukrainian language, opposed to Russian name Chernobyl. Flipping Switches (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  What we must be interested in is the name of Ukrainian city in the English language, not in Ukrainian and not in Russian. This is what our policies say. The rest is pure propaganda.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Support "Chernobyl" is a post-colonial russian-soviet legacy that migrated to English. There is no self-sufficient name in the English language for a place name that is outside the United States, Great Britain or other countries outside Ukraine. There is a practice that is simply inherited from English by a foreign russian language. Today it is wrong and incorrect. It needs to change according to the current situation according to the Ukrainian pronunciation of "Chоrnobyl". The city has been a part of Ukraine since 1991, so it is appropriate to change the pronunciation in the English language to the correct one. There are no arguments to leave the old, incorrect and erroneous version of the pronunciation "Chernobyl". See at the Encyclopedia Britannica --Beznazvy (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC) — Beznazvy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support – per the reasons listed by Leonidslupsky and JayAmber --ValeriySh (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose many sources are adjusting how they name things for political reasons during the ongoing conflict. If they continue to use a different spelling once the political concerns are no longer pressing, we can consider it then. The accepted spelling in English has been Chernobyl for 35 years. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - The common name is the current title. No need to make it harder to find or a redirect. -- Dane ^talk 05:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support - To help standardize Ukrainian variants in English. Our decision here will also help popularize the name “Chornobyl” in media outlets. — Kostović (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The nom says, The city is commonly known as Chernobyl in English. If that is the case then policy is quite clear that Chernobyl should be the preferred name. The etymology of the term is not relevant. It is not Wikipedia's job to try to change usage as several people have advocated, it is for us to reflect current usage. Kahastok talk 08:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Support - Most postcolonial city names have been renamed, to better reflect local indigenous preferences. Ukrainian people have explicitly asked for their preferene to be recognised. I see no reason why this should be disallowed in this instance. Taavi5342 (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC) — Taavi5342 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong oppose, and suggest SNOW close (WP:SNOW), albeit with a heavy heart. Chernobyl has always been the WP:COMMONNAME, and User:Justlettersandnumbers's evidence that this has not been changed by the recent (and in my view important) shift towards Ukrainian names in English-language sources is persuasive. User:AFreshStart provides several more instances at the 8 March discussion of authoritative media sources which have switched to Kyiv but have not switched to Chornobyl. Turning to the arguments in favour of the change, User:JayAmber's is the only one based in WP's policies and practice. However, the sources they cite have made the change only very recently and constitute a small proportion of the overall field, so whilst we might observe that a shift is happening (or coming), I think it is WP:TOOSOON to declare that one has taken place—again, see Justlettersandnumbers and AFreshStart's examples. The moral argument that Wikipedia should use Ukrainian names in order to be on the right side of history is persuasive, at least to me, but this is not the forum for it—consensus should be sought at an RfC for a wiki-wide decision to override COMMONNAME. —Kilopylae (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Whether a spelling is common or not is not written in stone — it's defined by how often it's used. Nothing wrong with intentionally making something more common. This is the will of the Ukrainian-speaking community. Sunny Daelos (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC) — Sunny Daelos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  We likely have the same person voting multiple times. Anyway, the argument explicitly contradicts to the Wikipedia policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Ymblanter Can somebody get a checkuser to check them. We can not have that in the community. -DownTownRich (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per sentiment and reasoning laid out by Kilopylae. Instaurare (talk) 09:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per common name. Also, Wikipedia is not here to change national policies or to enact world change. Natg 19 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2025

Change Chernobyl to Chornobyl. The latter is the Ukrainian name of a ukrainian city. The way it’s written now is a russian way of calling Ukrainian city. 2A02:A44A:3546:0:F866:58F1:A6C0:E649 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See the FAQ at the top of this page, or at Talk:Chernobyl/FAQ. LizardJr8 (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2025

Change the name from Chernobyl to Chornobyl. No need to use old, unofficial one. Maybe include

"Chornobyl, also Chernobyl"

so people don't confuse them

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Chornobyl Whatever123123321 (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please read Talk:Chernobyl/FAQ and WP:COMMONNAME. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Chornobyl, not Chernobyl

Open Google maps and look at, that the city name is Chornobyl, stop using foreign translation, it doesn't makes sense, because by that logic you can use Polish, Belarusian and other spellings alongside. Ukrainian town must have only Ukrainian-English transliteration Valentyn Holod (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I hate it too, but see discussions above. Wikipedia relies on most-used spellings, so for now, it shall stay ChErnobyl. Nurken (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors' personal biases are honestly getting beyond annoying. It doesn't matter how much use that or that name gets, as Wikipedia accepted Ukrainianization of Ukrainian cities, towns and other sub-divisions. Chornobyl is still an actual place within Ukraine and not just nickname for general area. The FAQ is a joke too, and whoever overseas it as well as this article has an obvious bias power tripping over the fact that Soviet naming conventions are dying of in countries other than Russia as the world continues to change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Ukrainian_places) ~2025-38781-98 (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

To quote from the page you just linked: unless an alternative name or transliteration is demonstrably more common in (English-language) reliable sources. and Do not use the standard Ukrainian transliterations, which are Chornobyl, Prypiat, Feodosiia and Yevpatoriia respectively, as this is not in common use.MrOllie (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

First of all, it is reference to Style/Romanization of Ukrainian language. It is not meant to outright disregard it but account for it. The purpose of it is to make Ukrainian names easier to read for English speakers. And the difference of reading Chernobyl vs Chornobyl is literally one sound, one letter.

Secondly, Chornobyl is a common name. It can be seen used in both media and entertainment (culture). I highly doubt an international reader will break down and will be unable to recognize a humongous change of one letter, one sound.

Third of all, the different name indeed can be used like with the case Dnipro vs Dnieper, alas where either the name itself has developed in English media and is not directly taken from either Russian or Ukrainian, or it is merely spelled differently but portray similar pronunciation. Neither are the cases with Chornobyl vs Chernobyl.

Just admit that the only reason for Chernobyl name to being upkept here is the unhealthy obsession of Wiki nerds with Soviet culture, especially the Soviet culture of disasters.

Finally the special edit for "Chernobyl" exeption in the article is nothing but a confirmation of the bias. Even if it ever was the case, "Chornobyl" is a no way an unknown and less popular spelling. The whole reason to keep Chernobyl in primary use is a bias in itself. ~2025-38781-98 (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Look at https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Chernobyl%2CChornobyl&year_start=1980. Chernobyl is overwhelmingly popular in English. Instead of casting aspersions, prove what you are saying (that policy supports the use of Chornobyl) with reliable source or data. win8x (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

so, a bias? Pretty convenient that the data only goes to 2022, don't you think? I thought most wiki editors successfully realized that due to a "specific" event in 2022, Ukrainianization has drastically increased...it is another issue that some of them decided to ignore such trends, but that's what I argue here.

...and all that is not to mention the moral darkness of disregarding original naming conventions of the countries these names are located in. I though English is an international language after all, so maybe it is actually a good thing that it finally resets countries self determination ambitions. ~2025-38781-98 (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

If you've got anything better than the ngram, feel free to show it. If the trend is so obvious, there should be a way to demonstrate it. win8x (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to rename to "Chornobyl" (Historical and linguistic alignment with Ukrainian-based nomenclature)

The title "Chernobyl" relies on the outdated Russian-based transliteration. Although the settlement became known during the Soviet period, the argument in favour of renaming it "Chornobyl" is based on linguistic and geographical accuracy:

1. Historical and Etymological Origin: The city's name is first documented in 1193 and derives directly from the Ukrainian word for common mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), «чорнобиль». This name is intrinsically linked to the regional Ukrainian linguistic tradition, predating the Soviet era.

1. Modern Standard: Adopting Chornobyl aligns the article with the globally recognized, official English transliteration from the Ukrainian language, consistent with standard geographical nomenclature for places on the sovereign territory of Ukraine (cf. Kyiv instead of Kiev).

Changing the title to "Chornobyl" ensures factual correctness and adherence to standard naming conventions, reflecting the city's indigenous and modern designation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distagon (talk • contribs) 20:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

This reads like an AI generated text.

Anyways, despite your claims, Chernobyl is the most commonly used name for this city in the English-speaking world. GarethBaloney (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The UN General Assembly adopted on December 10 2025, the name "Chornobyl" in their official resolution on the matters. This resolution also specifically calls to use this naming and rename the remembrance day to "International Chornobyl Disaster Remembrance Day". Here is the link to the document:

https://docs.un.org/en/A/80/L.27

Please advice on whether this event is enough to trigger reconsideration of the previous decision to refuse the request to move in Talk:Chernobyl#Requested_move_16_March_2022 (16 March 2022). Sinestro (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Sinestro: You can always open a new RM; consensus can change, after all. Though, personally I don't think that would change things too much, since the city is still mostly known for the nuclear disaster. You can give it a try though, it's been almost 4 years since that last discussion. —Opecuted (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2025 (UTC) Edited (ping): 13:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

It's very matter for understanding all russian-like translation for Ukraine city is harmful corner of vision. Its not created naturally, opposite its be consequence of imperial politics of russia in all their form .

"Russification" is very common terminology what used to explain assimilation politic of erase culture context of other nations. And renaming one of their tool. They do its with art, people, place, shop, city. First they do when ocupated city - change signs and burn book.

And in that context very important understanding why its common to say Chernobyl. And like...change? Bcs that naiming part of assimilation and bruh to use colonial name for actually exist specific territorial unity. ~2026-94871-1 (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

This correction is long overdue for the reasons you cite. The many precedents of "widely known" foreign name changes, e.g. Beijing, Kolkata, Myanmar, Ghana, etc., strongly show that this is the accepted practice globally. ~2026-25403-68 (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. The name of a place is decided by the country and people with sovereignty over it, not the commonly used name abroad. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, per WP:OFFICIAL, Wikipedia does make exceptions to COMMONNAME when there is a clear, concerted shift in official English nomenclature—such as the UN's recent adoption of 'Chornobyl'. Given the broader shift away from Russified transliterations in English media, this may qualify as an exception. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no such exception. Previous move discussions show overwhelming usage of "Chernobyl" in English. Until it is proven that there is overwhelming usage of "Chornobyl" in English, the page will not be moved. Mellk (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

You're right, my argument was flawed and I misunderstood the exception.

However, it's also incorrect to say that "Chernobyl" is used "overwhelmingly". The truth is that the English media is very split. I searched Google news for Chernobyl: https://news.google.com/search?q=chernobyl&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen and Chornobyl: https://news.google.com/search?q=chornobyl&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

Reputable sources use both names, as it's in transition right now. NYT, BBC, and AP for instance, use "Chernobyl". But Reuters, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The Globe and Mail have already switched to "Chornobyl".

Also, the article Kyiv was also moved when the transition was still underway, meaning there is a precedent. We don't need to wait until "Chernobyl" is fully obsolete before the move. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

We shouldn't rely on news sources and we also shouldn't limit this to arbitrary dates (like the past week or the past year). According to Ngrams, there is overwhelming usage of "Chernobyl". Yes, there is no data for the last few years, but if we use Google Scholar and set an arbitrary limit like since 2025, there are 10,200 results for "Chernobyl" compared to 1,730 results for "Chornobyl". This is despite the Ukrainian government attempting to dictate which spellings should be used in other languages. Mellk (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

That is fair. The Google Scholar numbers do show that I was a bit aggressive on my reliance on news sources. I think there's no longer really anything useful I can say here, so I'll let the broader consensus decide. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

After examining Wikipedia policies more, I would like to address that completely disregarding news sources contradicts Wikipedia policy. News sources are actually a very important indicator of current usage. WP:COMMONNAME never says that news sources shouldn't be relied on. Many news sources are fine and can be reliable, as stated in WP:NEWSORG. Grilledcheeseisgreat (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2026

Dear Wikipedia Administration,

I respectfully ask you to consider reviewing the title of the English-language article about the Ukrainian city of Chornobyl.

At present, the commonly used spelling “Chernobyl” originates from the Russian form “Чернобыль”. However, this spelling does not reflect the modern Ukrainian standard for the transliteration of Ukrainian geographical names into the Latin alphabet.

According to the Ukrainian national standard DSTU 9112:2021 ″System for Transliteration of the Ukrainian Alphabet into Latin Script″, the correct transliteration of ″Чорнобиль″ is Chornobyl, which directly corresponds to the Ukrainian spelling and pronunciation.

Using the form Chornobyl would therefore better align with the official Ukrainian transliteration standard and contribute to more accurate representation of Ukrainian toponyms in international information resources. Such a change would also be consistent with the broader effort to reflect Ukrainian-language forms of place names in global discourse.

I kindly ask the administration to consider initiating a discussion regarding the possibility of renaming the article in accordance with this standard.

Thank you for your attention and for your continued work on maintaining and improving Wikipedia.

Respectfully, Iffmiha Iffmiha (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make a move request instead. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 21:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

YES! ~2026-25562-98 (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

A change that is LONG overdue. ~2026-25470-75 (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2026 (UTC)